Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

SALVATION ARMY BILL [Lords]

BRITISH OLIVETTI LIMITED BILL [Lords]

EAGLE & GLOBE STEEL LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

BREASCLETE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many males and females, respectively, were unemployed at the latest available date.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): At 12 June, the provisional numbers of males and females registered as unemployed in Great Britain were 1,082,933 and 503,712 respectively.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures are both disastrous and calamitous? Will he tell the House the Government's target date for increasing unemployment to 2 million, so that they can weaken the trade union movement? If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will not take note of the TUC and the Labour Opposition on the policies that will bring us back to more constructive work in Britain, will they take note of the CBI which is advising them that they are ignoring several of its policies and thus there will be no forward march towards a reduction in unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I have constantly warned the House that a combination of high inflation and world recession, and the fact that we are paying ourselves much more than we are earning, is contributing to a high level of unemployment. I do not wish to make any forecasts about the next few months.

Mr. Needham: I accept that the figures are appalling, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the featherbedding of, and subsidies given by the previous Labour Administration to, so many industries are responsible for the problems that we face today?

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that we face a difficult period and that there is a hard slog ahead, but it has been made worse over a number of years by not facing the realities of our economic position. It will be better for the country and the House if we face them now.

Mr. Woolmer: With the worst monthly figures since records began in 1948 and an annual increase in unemployment of 600,000, are not the Government well on target to increase unemployment to over 2 million? When will the Government accept that these are the results of their own policies? When will they stop blaming others and change their policies in order to bring down unemployment?

Mr. Prior: Yes, these are the highest figures since the new series started in 1948. This is a matter of great regret for the Government and for everyone else. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government saw an increase in unemployment of 692,000 during their period in office, and the rate of increase at the moment is lower than it was during their first year.

Mr. Madel: As it is important that the expanded youth opportunities programme should continue to help young people who are out of work, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every effort will be made to ensure that there is 100 per cent. take-up of the programme, especially in areas hard hit by unemployment.

Mr. Prior: Yes. There will be an increase in the youth opportunities programme this year of about 50,000 over last year, and 60 per cent. over two years ago. Total spending on all special employment measures and the Manpower Services Commission, despite the cuts, is £50 million higher than it was in the last full year of the Labour Government. What is more, the total register effect of 190,000 is again higher than it was a year ago.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side before calling the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop weeping crocodile tears about unemployment? Does he not recall that only two or three months ago he reduced the amount of money available for job creation and other services? Is this not a deliberate act of Government policy to create unemployment and to bludgeon working people and trade unions into accepting a lower standard of living?

Mr. Prior: No. I refute the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. What is more, he is not even right about his first remarks, because the amount of money being spent this year is greater than last year and about £50 million greater than two years ago. [Interruption.] We had forecasts of increased expenditure by the previous Labour Government, but they were just forecasts. They did not actually spend the money.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any policy being advocated by the Labour Party that is likely to bring about a reduction in unemployment?

Mr. Prior: Not only has the Labour Party no policies, but its policies—

Mr. Cryer: You are in office now. You are in Government.

Mr. Prior: Not only have the Labour Opposition no policies, but their policies largely contributed to the state that we are in now.

Mr. Varley: rose—

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the practice, but question No. 30 is identical to question No. 1, yet it has not been taken by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the reason is that it was felt that it would be jumping the queue. I do not make the choice.

Mr. Varley: rose—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to you to extend the time on question No. 1, because many of us who have seen unemployment rising in our areas will not have an opportunity during the rest of Question Time to put questions on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could see that most Members on the Opposition Benches were on their feet. I must be fair to hon. Members who expect their questions a little lower down to be called.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State realise that the record and terrifying figures that he announced today are the direct consequence of the economic


policies being followed by the Government—monetarism, and nothing but monetarism? When will the right hon. Gentleman do his job of promoting employment instead of conniving at destroying it?

Mr. Prior: These unemployment figures arise chiefly out of the fact that we are paying ourselves far more than the increase in production or in the monetary targets, which are approximately the same as those set by the previous Labour Government. If we are to get further growth in employment, we must cut down the level of wage increases so that we can all share in higher employment.

Mr. Varley: Will the Secretary of State answer the simple proposition: why is it that in the textile, footwear and clothing industries, where workers have accepted lower wage increases than the going rate of inflation, about 5,000 workers have been thrown out of work over the last month? Why is that happening when they are not paying themselves more than the rest of the community?

Mr. Prior: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer. The answer to that is largely the world recession.

Jobcentres

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the Manpower Services Commission's policy regarding the establishment of new jobcentres.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I am generally satisfied with the MSC's policy on the establishment of new jobcentres. I have asked the MSC to be cost-effective in implementing the jobcentre programme. The programme will, of course, have to be carried out within the reduced resources available to the commission.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am extremely satisfied with the way in which he has dealt with the example that I gave him from my constituency? Does he agree that the Manpower Services Commission would be better advised to direct its resources towards valid training schemes for unemployed youngsters than outrageously

overbidding to obtain more prestigious premises for its operations?

Mr. Lester: I agree with my hon. Friend's last remark, but, in fairness to the situation in his constituency, I must say that the conditions are particularly difficult. The Manpower Services Commission is trying to operate from a room in a library, which is hardly the correct way for employment policies to be carried out. Jobcentres are helpful in terms of training, because they act as focal points for all employment services.

Mr. Pavitt: In the light of the figures given by the Secretary of State, and the obstinacy of the Prime Minister, will the Under-Secretary of State now do a U-turn on the two sections of the MSC that are biting badly in my constituency, namely, the elimination and cutback of STEP and the cessation of the experimental scheme, which has taken place with 70 officers of the MSC being pulled out of that interesting scheme to provide more jobs for young school leavers?

Mr. Lester: I do not know whether that follows from this question, but I do not want it to be felt that I am dodging it. We have concentrated STEP in areas of highest unemployment, and it is carrying more unemployed people now that it did before.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister accept that the MSC can at times be tardy in the provision of jobcentres? For example, does he know that in the sizeable towns of Buckley and Flint in my constituency, areas that are hard pressed by the steel closures and where literally thousands of people are seeking jobs, there are no jobcentres? Will he provoke the MSC into speedy action?

Mr. Lester: The MSC's proposals for the next 12 months are to continue to open jobcentres. I am sure that those areas will have a high priority in its programme. One difficulty is getting suitable premises at the right time.

Long-term Unemployed Persons

Mr. Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a programme of training and work experience for the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Prior: In addition to the training courses provided generally by the Manpower Services Commission, and the work


experience facilities for young people, the special temporary employment programme is available for the long-term unemployed, in special development areas, development areas and designated inner urban areas.

Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State realise that there will soon be 500,000 long-term unemployed people, many of them concentrated in areas of high unemployment, such as the North-East? Is this not an appalling waste of resources? When will we have the substantial expansion in training and retraining that was promised before the election?

Mr. Prior: The figures are bad. The actual figures are lower than those stated by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not wish to emphasise that because a number of the long-term unemployed are not caught up in the proper statistics. The Manpower Services Commission has carried out a review of the long-term unemployed. It reported the results of its study in February. It is now considering those findings, and they will be taken into account in the MSC's annual review in the autumn. We shall listen carefully to its comments.

Mr. Scott: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Manpower Services Commission to look at this matter, produce proposals urgently and consider whether the STEP programme can be developed and expanded in order to make particular provision for the needs of the young long-term unemployed?

Mr. Prior: STEP is designed chiefly for the 19 to 24-year-olds. As my hon. Friend said in reply to an earlier question, more long-term unemployed are being helped by STEP now than ever before. In the past, STEP dealt with many people who were not long-term unemployed. We shall ask the MSC for its views as quickly as it is able to give them.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister of Unemployment aware that if he wants to cut back on the long-term unemployed and on others who are in the dole queues as a result of this Tory Government's measures, one of the things that he should be doing and urging upon his dry Prime Minister is ensuring that the current interest rate is reduced sharply, that the

cuts in public expenditure are stopped and some of them reversed, and that the purchasing power in the land, apart from the number of jobs available, is increased? If he did those things he would be doing his job correctly.

Mr. Prior: No printing of money or increase in public expenditure in itself can cure our problems. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember certain words—
in all candour, that option no longer exists".
I am glad that he is making so much fuss now when he was so quiet a few months ago.

Mr. Forman: A large number of the long-term unemployed are unskilled, elderly manual workers. Is my right hon. Friend looking sympathetically at the possibilities of early retirements or generous redundancy payments?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. That is all part of the review. The problem is the money. There is no easy, straightforward method of helping those unfortunate people without spending a great deal of Government money. Our problem is to try to restrain public expenditure so that we can reduce interest rates, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes us to do.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has just made a reference to my being quiet a few months ago. I remind the Minister of Unemployment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. [Interruption.] I invite the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. It is a very serious matter to ignore any appeal from the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. I have invited the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber. If he does not do so, I shall order him to leave the Chamber at this moment. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will withdraw from the Chamber. That means that he must go out.
The Chair cannot be ignored in the way that the hon. Gentleman ignored it. He must leave the Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? This is a matter for the whole House. The House must support its Speaker when hon. Members refuse to listen to him. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is emotional to-day, but I must tell him that I am taking the easiest course with him, and not the most serious. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber, because nobody can preside over this Chamber if he is ignored when he makes appeals.
In order not to hold up the progress of Question Time, I give notice that I propose to take a most serious step at the end of Question Time, a step that I do not wish to take, unless the hon. Gentleman leaves the Chamber now.

Mr. Skinner: I have not done anything wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman leaves me with no choice, but in order not to take up the rest of Question Time, if the House agrees, I shall deal with the matter not now but after Question Time. Otherwise, I shall deal with it at once. [Interruption.] Order. I was not inviting comments. I wish to give the hon. Gentleman a last chance. Will he withdraw from the Chamber? [Interruption.] Very well. This is a step that I hoped never to have to take, but if the hon. Gentleman will not listen to me, I have no choice.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I shall listen to that point of order while the hon. Member for Bolsover has a chance to breathe.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of the Secretary of State's reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), would it not be in order and help matters if the Secretary of State offered an apology to my hon. Friend? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is passing, but this is now a matter between the hon. Member for Bolsover and myself. If the Secretary of State has a helpful statement, will he by all means make it?

Mr. James Callaghan: May I say that no hon. Member wishes to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker? [Interruption.] As you say, this is a matter on which you have taken a decision, or you intend to

take a decision, because you regard it as a challenge to the Chair. I suggest that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will express his view—which I am sure is true, because in this House he always accepts the edicts of the House, whether or not he agrees with them—and will state that he had no intention of challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in the heat of the moment, perhaps we can pass on and leave the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Bolsover wish to rise to say that he was not challenging the Chair but that he got carried away in the heat of the moment? This is his opportunity.

Mr. Prior: At the start of this matter the hon. Gentleman was challenging what I said. That caused some of the trouble, although it cannot condone in any way what has happened since that moment.

Mr. Skinner: Why not?

Mr. Prior: If I was hasty in my reactions to the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No other hon. Member would have been given as much latitude. All that the hon. Gentleman has to do is to explain to the House that he did not mean to challenge the authority of the Chair. If he will do that, we shall resume Question Time.

Mr. Skinner: It was well within the hearing of all hon. Members that I was addressing my remarks not to you, Mr. Speaker, but to the Minister in view of the lies that he has been telling about me.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will understand that I am left with no option—no option at all. The Serjeant-at-Arms will ensure that the hon. Member complies with my instruction to withdraw from the House.

Mr. Skinner: What, him? Get back in your chair.

The hon. Member then withdrew from the Chamber.

Unemployed Persons (Job Acceptance)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that the existing rules about the unemployed accepting available jobs are being adequately enforced.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am generally satisfied that there is an increased awareness of the importance of enforcing the rules about the unemployed accepting suitable jobs. This is illustrated by the encouraging increase of 75 per cent. in the number of cases put to adjudicating authorities in the year ending March 1980 compared with the previous year, but there is always room for improvement and I am watching the situation carefully.

Mr. Hunt: I do not wish to minimise the serious and genuine unemployment in many parts of the country and parts of London, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents find it difficult to reconcile the high levels of unemployment with the large number of jobs advertised every night in the London evening newspapers? Does that not indicate that we should make it a strict and invariable rule that when two jobs have been offered and refused, unemployment benefit should automatically be stopped?

Mr. Lester: It is difficult to generalise. As I said, 75 per cent. more referrals of such people have been made to adjudicating authorities. Naturally, unhappiness is caused when people find that there are vacancies and people are offered jobs. If my hon. Friend will provide me with specific examples I shall be pleased to follow them up. Our employment services fill seven out of 10 vacancies within six working days.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the Minister accept that there is a high level of unemployment among men and women over the age of 55 years? Will he discuss with his colleagues the possibility of making available early retirement and thereby do the Government and people concerned a favour by taking them off the unemployment list?

Mr. Lester: Many industries, including the mining industry, already make such arrangements. It is better done through industries than through the Government.

Benzidine Dyes (Cancer Risk)

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will initiate a study into the alleged cancer risk in the use of dyes containing benzidine; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secrtary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The Health and Safety Executive has no plans to initiate a study into the alleged cancer risk in the use of dyes containing benzidine as further epidemiological studies would be unlikely to add to current knowledge obtained from studies already undertaken in this country and elsewhere.

Miss Lestor: Is the Minister aware that since early decisions were made about benzidine, the Cancer Prevention Research Trust, the textile industry and the National Insurance Commissioners have accepted the evidence of Professor Case which suggests a strong link between cancer and the use of such chemicals? Is it not therefore advisable, in order to allay the fears of the large numbers of people in industry using the dyes, at least to initiate an inquiry into the available evidence?

Mr. Mayhew: The Health and Safety Executive recognises that there appears to be a link between the development of cancer and the use of benzidine dyes. It is working on guidance for the control of dyes containing benzidine. That guidance note will be published in due course.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the Minister aware that benzidine is the basis of dyestuffs imported into the United Kingdom? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade to ban the import of benzidine-based dyestuffs, as an interim measure?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, for the reasons that I have given. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the manufacture and use of benzidine are prohibited in Britain under the 1967 regulations.

Mr. Pavitt: What study has the Department made of the epidemiological studies and other information available from the Medical Research Council?

Mr. Mayhew: The Health and Safety Executive is well aware of studies undertaken in the United States, for example, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. The Institute of Occupational Health and in a paper published in March, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, do not take the view that a further study will add to the body of knowledge already available.

School Leavers (Bradford)

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployed school leavers in the Bradford metropolitan council district.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 12 June, the provisional number of school leavers under 18 years of age registered as unemployed in the Bradford metropolitan council district was 1,599.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the devastating current rate of job destruction in West Yorkshire and the consequent loss of job opportunities for youth, and in the context of the new horrendous estimates of 3 million unemployed by 1983, will the Minister consider taking emergency measures to halt the demoralisation of youth resulting from prolonged idleness?

Mr. Lester: The measures operating in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency have been particularly effective. In 1979 all the young people involved in the youth opportunities programme were offered and accepted jobs, with the exception of 31 who had personal reasons for not doing so. The community industry scheme is designed for particularly disadvantaged young people, and 78 of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents are already involved in the scheme.

Mr. Alexander: When my hon. Friend considers Bradford's problems will he note the comments by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on the appalling job prospects for young blacks? In view of those comments, what steps can be taken to improve the training and employment prospects for unemployed school leavers, particularly in the inner city areas?

Mr. Lester: Most of the schemes operate regardless of colour—and that is as it should be. Places are offered on the basis of need. Special measures exist for West Indian and Asian young people where they are seen to be necessary within the existing schemes. We shall be meeting the chairman of the CRE this week to examine again the serious problem.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the wave of anger that swept through the Commons at the announcement of the unemployment figures is reflected

throughout the Opposition Benches? Is he aware that we are particularly worried about the level of unemployment among young people? Is he further aware that in Keighley, which is within the Bradford metropolitan area, there is a higher level of unemployment among young people than there was during the whole of the Labour Government's period of office? Does he accept that the Conservative Government have been in office for 13 months and that they should be doing something about restoring morale among young people, who see years ahead of cuts in public expenditure, high interest rates and dole queues? What are they going to do about that?

Mr. Lester: We have taken urgent measures to deal with the bulge of young people coming on to the labour market. I do not wish to minimise the situation. Last year 711,000 young people left school, and all but 35,000 of them got jobs, although I accept that that is 35,000 too many.

Mr. John Grant: Why is it necessary for the chairman of the CRE to seek a meeting with the Secretary of State? Why have the Government not taken the initiative to deal with the problem of unemployment in the black community, when they know that between May of last year and May of this year unemployment among the ethnic minority community increased by 28 per cent.—about double the figure for the rest of the population?

Mr. Lester: There is a constant review of policy, and we are always looking at the various difficult areas. We run an open door policy, and the chairman of the CRE and anybody else is welcome to come and discuss the problems so that we can exchange ideas.

Wages and Unemployment (Relationship)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussion he has had with the Trades Union Congress on the relationship between high wage claims and unemployment.

Mr. Prior: We have had a series of discussions at the National Economic Development Council with the Trades Union Congress and others on economic prospects—the latest on 16 June. The Government's view of the need to relate wage claims to productivity and output, and


the consequences for employment if that were not done, were among the subjects discussed.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to create employment in the commercial and industrial sector is for companies to be able to make goods or supply services competitively, and that that might also be applied to machine tool manufacturers in Coventry? Is there any evidence that the TUC understands or accepts that, or does it prefer not to acknowledge it?

Mr. Prior: Our message is clear and goes to everyone in Britain, including those in trade, industry, the TUC and the CBI. If wage negotiations fail to lead to moderate settlements this year, the country will have to endure an unacceptably high level of unemployment. The TUC understands that. I hope that it will use its powers of persuasion to ensure that people settle at reasonable levels. It must do that if it, like the rest of the country, wishes to avoid ever higher unemployment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When the Secretary of State meets the TUC, will he take with him the speech that the Secretary of State for Industry made in America, when he said that American industry should come to Britain because we had low wages? Will he also discuss interest rates, which have increased from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent., and the fact that inflation has doubled as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Prior: There are great opportunities for America and other countries to invest in Britain. Above all, those countries require good industrial relations and higher productivity. If we could get those two messages across, we could very quickly reduce the level of unemployment.

Mr. Trippier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent case of Mr. Brendan Murphy, a local government officer who was employed by Stockport metropolitan borough council in Greater Manchester? Is he aware that Mr. Murphy was expelled by NALGO for criticising high wage claims? As wages account for the bulk of local government expenditure, and as last year's overspending amounted to about £600 million, does he not deplore the action of that NALGO branch?

Mr. Prior: I gather that Mr. Murphy was a NALGO shop steward. He said

that he had received a 28 per cent. increase last year, and that if he received a 14 per cent. increase this year it would amount to an increase of 42 per cent. As he could not see any increase in productivity in Stockport, he thought that that was bound to lead to higher costs or higher unemployment. He was right, because that is the inevitable consequence. What happened to him was a great shame.

Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is nonsense to say that high wages are the cause of unemployment? [Interruption.] If it were true, there would have been continual high unemployment in America. As hon. Members know, that is a load of rubbish. Is it not clear that many other factors lead to unemployment, not least the fact that our society is so organised that unemployment is an inherent part of the existing capitalist system?

Mr. Prior: I reject the hon. Gentleman's last remark. High wages alone will not lead to unemployment, but high wages that are not accompanied by higher productivity or higher output will. It is that that has depressed Britain's competitive position in comparison with her competitors, and that is why our import bill for manufactured goods has increased despite the fact that we can produce the goods ourselves.

Apprentice Thatchers

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 18 March, column 197, he will state over 1979–80 how many apprentice thatchers remain in thatching; and if he is satisfied with the training of thatchers and other practitioners in ancient crafts.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in September 1979, nine apprentices completed the two-year period of training in thatching under the new entrant training scheme of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. All nine remain in thatching.
Information is not really available about those trainees who completed their training in 1979 under private arrangements.
I am informed that COSIRA keeps its new entrant training scheme under review, and I have no reason to consider that the Manpower Services Commission should take further action in relation to training for thatching or other ancient crafts.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that I have only 1 per cent. of my tongue in my cheek when I point out that those of us who considered the National Heritage Bill discovered that many of those who do the skilled jobs that preserve our heritage are over 60 years of age? Do not the MSC and the Department have some responsibility here? Should they not do what small private firms cannot do, namely, provide a basis for skilled craftsmen in arts that are now vanishing?

Mr. Lester: I assure the hon. Gentleman that 540 thatchers are working. The apprentices that I mentioned are aged between 16 and 19 years, and that is clear from the fact that they are apprentices. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about dry dyking. Schemes are in existence under the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that those in rural areas resent the general laughter that follows whenever issues such as these are discussed? Does he agree that we are talking about people and about their jobs? It is not a matter for laughter among Opposition Members that people work in the countryside. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are determined to bring prosperity and employment to the countryside, as well as to the towns?

Mr. Lester: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's remarks. We are talking not only about people's jobs, but about an ancient tradition. A great deal of beautiful countryside is enlivened because we still have thatched dwellings. I do not wish to do anything that will prevent that from continuing.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As special circumstances arose a few minutes ago, and as we have reached only question No. 8, will it be possible to continue questions to the Department of Employment for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour at 3.30 pm?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. We had better not start varying our rules.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Prime Minister if she list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Earlier today I had a meeting with King Hussein and the Prime Minister of Jordan. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the Conservative-controlled Kent county council, which now employs 51,000 people compared with 57,000 people two years ago? Does not that show that where the political will exists, real cuts in the bureaucratic burden can be made?

The Prime Minister: I shall respond to my hon. Friend's invitation and congratulate Kent county council. It is showing great consideration for its ratepayers. Its example should be followed.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look at the unemployment figures and notice that the figures for Scotland have increased by 27,000 in one month? Although she has abandoned Scotland, does she not realise that she will drive young people on to the streets because the political system cannot take care of their needs and aspirations?

The Prime Minister: Of course I have looked at the unemployment figures today. If our top priority is to squeeze inflation out of the economy, we must inevitably suffer some unemployment in the short term. [Interruption.] I was answering a question that was put by an hon. Member who rose to his feet to ask it. If our top priority is to squeeze inflation out of the economy, it is, sadly, inevitable that in the short run we shall suffer some unemployment. I was asked about unemployment among the young. The hon. Gentleman will know that the MSC recommended increasing the number of places available under the youth opportunities scheme


and that my right hon. Friend has accepted that recommendation in full.

Mr. James Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Lady understand the consternation with which those figures have been received by the country, especially as they will increase drastically during the next few months? Does she not realise that they are the highest figures for unemployment since the 1930s, that the greatest number of days have been lost as a result of industrial disputes since the 1920s, and that we now have the highest and most crippling interest rates that we have ever had? For how long does the right hon. Lady propose to bask in that complacent air of hers? For how long does she think we can go on suffering? How much industry will be left by the time she thinks that she has conquered inflation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my previous reply on the priority of squeezing inflation out of the system. I phrased that reply very carefully. It is almost totally in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman said when the unemployment figures under his Government were very high. I quote—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Order. Our democratic procedure demand that people have the right to be heard.

The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman was asked a similar question about unemployment, he gave this reply:
As long as we are trying to squeeze inflation out of the economy, this is unfortunately one of the consequences that we must face."—[Official Report, 25 January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1169.]
The right hon. Gentleman knew it, and I know it. He was ready to take harsh decisions under the aegis of the IMF. We are ready to take harsh and difficult decisions to prevent the IMF's coming in.

Mr. Callaghan: Although the country knows it well, is it not right that I should remind the Prime Minister that when I made that statement, the result of the policy was that inflation went down to under 8 per cent., compared with the 22 per cent. that we have now? In the first 12 months of the right hon. Lady's Gov

ernment unemployment has increased by 350,000. Under the Labour Government it went down steadily—[Interruption.] It went down steadily from 1977 for two full years. The right hon. Lady has thrown away that advantage. Does the Prime Minister not realise that a return to the old policies that she is talking about will not be tolerated in this country? She must change her policy.

The Prime Minister: The rignt hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly chosen the period and the statistics very carefully. The quote that I gave him was from 1977. He will recollect that the inflation that he had to squeeze out of the system had, under a Labour Government, reached 26·9 per cent. in 1975. Consequently, he had rising unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman inherited a figure of 550,000 unemployed, yet unemployment peaked at a figure of 1·5 million under his Government. He put it up far further than this Government have done. Of course we regret unemployment, but unless we squeeze inflation out there will be higher unemployment in the future.

Mr. Callaghan: The time will come when the right hon. Lady will have to stand on her own two feet on policies instead of referring back to other people's speeches. If she wants to swap statistics—and I do not care for it much—I accept that over the whole period of the Labour Government unemployment went up by 600,000 in five years. She has put it up by 350,000 in 12 months.

The Prime Minister: I do not quarrel with statistics if they are accurate. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will forget neither his record nor some of the strictures that he made from this Dispatch Box. I am prepared to take responsibility, which the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to take for a long time. Yes, we do have to go through a period of determined, tough policies in order to squeeze inflation out of the system. Yes, we do have to get the money supply down. I believe that those policies will work, but they must be given time to work, and total support.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Prime Minister is telling us—and I do not accept it—that we have to go through these policies in order to achieve success, will she please give us some indication of her time


scale so that the unemployed may know how long they have to stay out of work?

The Prime Minister: In so far as the policy of squeezing inflation out of the system consists of reducing the supply of printed money, the rate at which it works will depend upon the amount of co-operation that we receive, particularly on wage claims. If wage claims are related to any increase in output, there will be less unemployment, inflation will fall more quickly, and the sale of our goods in other countries will improve and increase rapidly.

Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that the Russians are withdrawing 10,000 Soviet troops from Afghanistan? Can she say what comfort that will bring to the 500,000 Afghan dead and the 2 million refugees?

The Prime Minister: We heard of that announcement while we were in session at the economic summit in Venice, and we made a pronouncement upon it. We did not take a great deal if notice of it, believing that it was a ploy carefully designed to influence us in what we were saying at the summit. It will be of use only if that withdrawal is permanent and leads to the withdrawal of all Soviet troops from Afghanistan, which is still an occupied country, and which still has resistance fighters fighting for the independence of their country.

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy and exciting day—

Mr. William Hamilton: Not very exciting if one is on the dole.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend consider the situation in local government, and in particular the way in

which local government is financed? Will she consider introducing a new method to take the place of the present archaic rating system, which is manifestly unfair?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the local rating system is not equitable. We have stopped the rating revaluation that was due to have taken effect within the next four or five years. Our pledge is ultimately to abolish the domestic rating system. We said in our manifesto that a reduction in income tax must take priority over that objective. But we still have that objective, and when we have dealt with the income tax position and increased productivity, we hope to be able to take some steps towards achieving it.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Prime Minister agree that when the school leavers come on to the market shortly they will exacerbate the situation and there will be more young people unemployed than ever before in this country's history? Will she, at an early date, consider introducing the urgent measures that will be required to remove the sheer waste and demoralisation that her policies are inflicting on the country?

The Prime Minister: Unemployment among school leavers will rise when the main school leavers come out of school at the end of the summer term. Therefore, we shall indeed face increasing problems. That is why the Manpower Services Commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment have placed special emphasis in their relief schemes on helping to secure job opportunities for the young under the youth opportunities scheme. This is not a problem that is peculiar to this country. I can understand why everyone is distressed by the unemployment figures today, but they are higher in percentage terms in places such as Italy, Belgium and Ireland, where unemployment is of the order of 8 to 9 per cent., and they have an even bigger problem than we have.

VENICE SUMMIT MEETING

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the economic summit meeting in Venice on 22 and 23 June at which I was accompanied by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the and the Secretary of State for Energy.
This was the first summit meeting since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the first to have a detailed and formal discussion of international political problems. The unanimity and sense of common purpose that informed this discussion is reflected in our public statements. We confirmed that the Soviet occupation of an independent sovereign nation is and will remain unacceptable. We called for the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops and for the Afghan people to be left free to decide their own future. We were not deflected by the Soviet Government's carefully timed announcement of the withdrawal of certain units from Afghanistan. We made clear that the withdrawal, if confirmed, must be irreversible and must continue until no Soviet forces remained in Afghanistan. We reaffirmed our opposition to the attendance of our athletes at the Olympic Games.
In addition to this declaration on Afghanistan, we agreed statements about refugees, the taking of diplomatic hostages, and hijacking.
The main purpose of these summit meetings, however, is still to review the world economic situation. Here, our discussions were dominated by the problem of oil prices. These have virtually doubled since our last meeting in Tokyo a year ago. The increases in the price of oil have had and will continue to have profoundly damaging effects upon the world economy. They have led to even higher inflation, to the imminent threat of severe recession and to increased unemployment in the industrialised countries.
We agreed at Venice that our top economic priority must remain the reduction of inflation and that determined fiscal and monetary restraint is therefore required. We agreed that if we were to improve productivity and provide new job opportunities, resources must be

shifted from Government spending to the private sector and from consumption to investment. We agreed that measures of this kind might be economically and politically difficult in the short term but that they were essential to sustained non-inflationary growth and to increased employment, which are our major goals. These conclusions are entirely in line with the policies that the Government are pursuing in this country.
We accepted the need to break, over the next 10 years, the link that has been apparent in some countries between economic growth and oil consumption. With this aim in mind, we agreed upon a series of measures to reduce consumption of oil, to use it more efficiently, and to develop alternative sources of energy.
The worst sufferers from the sharply increased price of oil have been the developing countries. Both their oil bill and their current account deficit have doubled in the past two years. The increase in their spending on oil over this period is higher than the total amount of aid that they have received from all official sources. At the same time, the ability of the developed countries to help them has itself been diminished by the oil price rises. All seven countries represented in Venice are now in current account deficit.
It follows that the democratic industrialised countries cannot alone carry the responsibility of providing aid to the developing countries. We must look to the main oil exporting countries to use their vastly increased resources to give help. We believe that it is as much in their interests as ours to contribute in this way to the stability of the world economy and to the development of the poorer nations. The fact is that the industrialised countries of the free world, the oil-exporting countries and the non-oil developing countries depend upon each other and need to work more closely together.
Against this background we welcomed the report of the Brandt Commission.
We also agreed to review our aid policies and procedures. We shall consider the results of this review at the next summit.
In addition to our formal business, we had a number of less formal exchanges. In particular, I had a useful bilateral meeting with President Carter.
On the economic side, this was a meeting at which we were largely concerned to carry forward the work begun last year. At the same time, we broke new ground by discussing the major international political issue of the day—the invasion and continued occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. The meeting offered a timely opportunity for the seven Heads of State and Government to reaffirm their unity of purpose on the political and economic difficulties that we face. That opportunity was taken.

Mr. James Callaghan: It was correct to call for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, but was the possibility considered that the Soviet Government are finding greater difficulties in Afghanistan than they anticipated? Did the Heads of Government assembled in Venice consider that the Soviet Government might have meant what they said, and might be looking for a way out, although it is absurd to pronounce on that at present? Did the right hon. Lady support Chancellor Schmidt's visit to Moscow, which would give that most experienced statesman an opportunity to examine Soviet policy and clearly state the West's view?
Without reverting to what happened at Question Time, will the right hon. Lady accept that to state that the top economic priority is the reduction of inflation neglects the other factors that leading Western statesmen should take into account, such as levels of unemployment and prospects for growth? Will the right hon. Lady further accept that I criticise the statement because it singles out that issue and because I believe that any proposals for solving world economic problems will therefore fall far short of a satisfactory solution.
If the right hon. Lady wants to reduce inflation—and let us see whether her deeds match her words—what about reducing VAT and asking the gas industry to reverse the price increase that was artificially imposed by the Government? Does she agree that those measures would reduce inflation almost at a stroke?
The statement says that it is necessary to transfer resources to investment. How is that happening in this country, where the level of investment is declining month by month, although there is no indication that consumption has been overstretched?
We welcome the attachment to coal production, but, again, how does the right hon. Lady propose to match her deeds to her words? For example, if pits in South Wales find that because of closures in the steel industry there is temporary overproduction, does she intend to close those pits, or will they now remain open? That is the acid test of such a policy. Will the right hon. Lady still insist that the financial targets, which both sides of the coal industry agree are unrealistic, must be accepted, although we know that that will result in pit closures?
The statement says that it was agreed to review our aid policies. Aid to Bangladesh has been cut from the programmed£65 million to£27 million last year and£42 million this. The President of Bangladesh was here last week. Can his country and others in a similar position look for an increase in aid?
I note that the Prime Minister did not refer to a sentence in the document that referred to the need for a dialogue with what are called the social partners, by which is meant the trade unions. May we hope that the right hon. Lady will now cease her weekly venomous attack on the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it had occurred to us that the Russian troops were finding increased difficulties. I hope that they are. I hope that the resistance of people to an invader and their determination to fight for their own country is great and will increase. That might make Soviet troops withdraw.
I notice that the Russians admitted that the units that they are withdrawing are not necessary at present. It may be that they are of types that are not involved in the direct occupation or in fighting the resistance that they are meeting. We shall look forward to the possibility of further reductions in troop numbers in Afghanistan if the Russians intend to withdraw.
The right hon. Gentleman asked eight questions, which I intend to try to answer. He asked about Chancellor Schmidt's visit to Moscow. The Chancellor is not going on behalf of Western nations, European nations, or those represented at the economic summit. He is going. That is a fact. I am sure that he will deploy


his own case and the case of the free world very well indeed. I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that he will stand foursquare behind the defence and the defence policies of the West.
Thirdly, I note that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be at odds with the seven Heads of Government who, in paragraph 4 of the communiqué said:
The reduction of inflation is our immediate top priority and will benefit all nations.
That was the message that the right hon. Gentleman was giving when inflation was his top priority. It is this Government's top priority.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about certain specific actions that, he said, would reduce inflation—reducing VAT, and various other things. Of course, they would increase the need to borrow over and above the present amount of borrowing, which is already too high and is one of the factors that are keeping up interest rates. If they did not increase the need to borrow, they would increase the need to print money and, ultimately, that would increase inflation. We could not possibly agree to that at present.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about resources being moved to investment. As he knows, we are investing quite heavily in AGRs and in different fuel-producing capacity. I accept that we need to put more into investment, but on the whole it seems to me that reducing tax on consumption, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed, is not the way to increase investment. It would increase consumption.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the communiqué's references to coal. We have the biggest coal-based economy of the countries that attended the economic summit. We already get more than two-thirds of our electricity from coal. The phrases were particularly directed at the United States and Canada, which have to increase their coal output. For example, the United States expects to increase coal production from 600 million tons a year now to about 1·2 billion tons in 1990. The communiqué was also a request to some non-coal producing countries to use more coal rather than oil. For example, Japan and Italy will both need to use more coal rather than to import more oil. If

our coal were highly competitive it would be possible for us to have export markets, but I am not sure that it is price-competitive with coal from other parts of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to aid policies and procedures. I do not think that the industrialised countries were thinking of increasing the amount of aid that they gave. As the hight hon. Gentleman knows, we are one of the countries that give a higher proportion of GNP in aid than do a number of the other countries assembled. We are all rather concerned that such a high proportion of the aid that we give goes through multilateral organisations and therefore we have less available to give bilaterally.
The right hon. Gentleman's final question concerned the dialogue between the social partners. I thought that "social partners" was a much better expression than "both sides of industry". That dialogue takes place regularly not only in the NEDC but in many Departments, through my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State and their Ministers. Indeed, many of the unions are regularly at the Departments, discussing matters of particular interest to those Departments.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for her detailed replies. I do not deny that she is correct in saying that reducing VAT or gas prices would have an impact on consumption. However, the Heads of State have stated that the top priority is the reduction of inflation. How does she propose to reconcile that contradictory aim? Surely that is the object of government. That is why she is there.
I repeat one of my questions, because it concerns a matter that is being watched with close interest in South Wales and other parts of the country. What impact will a temporary over-production of coal have on pit closures?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I had answered completely the right hon. Gentleman's question on inflation. The effect of what he is proposing would be to increase the need for borrowing, which would increase interest rates or lead to the printing of more money. Ultimately, both those courses would lead to a higher level of inflation. They would not fight inflation; they would provide increased inflation next year.


We therefore totally reject that course of action.
I do not expect what happened at the Venice summit to have any impact on coal in this country unless we have sharply increased productivity and, therefore, highly competitive prices. In the current financial year the Government are contributing, through the external financing limit, about£834 million to the coal industry, of which£600 million goes to investment. That is a substantial amount of aid to the coal industry.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about her longer-term discussions with her colleagues on energy questions? Did they discuss the benefits of nuclear energy to the North-South problem and to developing countries? Can she reassure the House that we are soon to make a decision to start on a commercial prototype of the fast breeder reactor, in view of the long lead time and the need to get such aid to developing countries by the turn of the century?

The Prime Minister: All the heads of Government assembled in Venice agreed that the only way to meet the energy gap in the coming years was to increase the output of nuclear energy. That is why we have referred firmly to that need in almost every communiqué. I know that there are groups who do not agree with that, but we believe that the majority of people are fully aware of this matter and that we must go ahead with the nuclear energy programme.
There was a reference in the communiqué, or at any rate in the discussions, to the need to invest in different forms of electricity production in developing countries. One would hope that a certain amount of the resources of the World Bank and other international institutions would go to that, in order to reduce the dependence of those countries on oil.
At the moment I cannot give my right hon. Friend any undertaking about the fast breeder reactor. As he knows, I share his view that it is an efficient reactor. The one at Dounreay is doing extremely well. However, it would need a major public inquiry into the system, quite apart from any planning application, and there are other things to deal with before that.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In the light of the Scottish unemployment figures, does the Prime Minister accept that the immediate concern is not the long-term energy problem but the utilisation of existing oil revenues from the modernising of industry and the creating of new jobs in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The existing oil revenues—they are, and will become, increasingly substantial—are already going into the Exchequer and being disbursed on many expenditures. Some go to regional aid, some to financing nationalised industries and some to new investment. They are already in the Budget accounts. It is not as if there were a new source to come. They were already being used. The only new sources of revenue are those that have to be earned by our competitiveness.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister saying that the considered opinion of the summit in Venice was that the general imposition of British levels of interest will lead to a reduction of inflation in the Western world?

The Prime Minister: The levels of interest in the United States were recently higher than ours, although they have now come down. The level of interest rates is one of the ways of reducing the demand for borrowed money. So long as the joint demand for borrowed money, on the part of Government and industry combined, is greater than the supply of money available, so long will interest rates be high. We are trying to get them down by less Government spending.

Sir Frederic Bennett: As, in her opening remarks, the Prime Minister referred to the summit's consideration of refugees, would she care to elaborate on her remarks? The United Nations has announced that the number of Afghans who have had to cross the border into an already overstrained Pakistan exceeds 1 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best test of Russian intentions would be that the flow of refugees should slow down rather than increase, as it is continuing to do today?

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is lining his pockets from deals with the Russians. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon.


Member to make an accusation against an honourable Member in that manner?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) repeat what he said?

Mr. Cryer: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was making the point that the hon. Member, who is always raising questions about Afghanistan, is, I understand, a director of Kleinwort, Benson Limited, which has entered into a deal with the Moscow Narodny Bank. I therefore said that he was lining his pockets from deals with the Russians.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House never gains anything from personal attacks and personal criticism. One might as well say that I am lining my pockets by being Speaker, which I am not. So long as the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) does not feel that it is a reflection on his honour—

Sir F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Sir Frederic Bennett.

Sir F. Bennett: Had the remark been made by almost any other hon. Member I would have asked for a withdrawal. What the hon. Gentleman says is totally untrue. However, I regard him with such contempt that I shall not bother, Mr. Speaker, to take up your time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that amounts to an equality of insults.

The Prime Minister: The declaration on refugees referred to the 1 million refugees from Afghanistan, the great majority of whom have gone into Pakistan, but some into Iran. The communiqué put the matter better than I am able to express it, when it said:
The Heads of State and Government therefore make a vigorous appeal to the Governments responsible … to remove the causes of this widespread human tragedy and not to pursue policies which drive large numbers of their people from their own countries.
I hope that those responsible for driving them from both Vietnam and Afghanistan will take heed of those words.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is it correct, as widely reported in the press, that, compared with her colleagues, the right hon.

Lady was noticeably lukewarm towards the Brandt Commission's report—in sharp contrast to her right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), as shown by his distinguished speech a week ago? If so, why?

The Prime Minister: It is totally incorrect.

Mr. Higgins: In view of the importance of deterring Russian aggression in Afghanistan and elsewhere, why are we still making export credits available to the Russians at subsidised rates of interest, which may help the Russian war effort?

The Prime Minister: We are on the international consensus rate of credits in accordance with our agreement not to have competitive credit in sales to other countries. It so happens that the consensus rate of credit is below our present rate of interest. In some other countries, it happens to be slightly above. It would be contrary to the interests of our own people if we did not adhere to that consensus rate of credit.

Mr. Jay: Does the Prime Minister's reference to wage claims mean that this Government have now got an incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: In the universal sense, long before we ever heard the saying that a nation's economy will make sense only if increases in wage settlements are related to increases in output, the answer was "Yes, of course". That is the only way to keep a sound economy. That method is far older than any phrase related to incomes or wage claims. It relates to sound monetary policy.

Mr. Cormack: Bearing in mind the firm statement of the allies on the Olympic Games, and in view of the fact that the British team was named yesterday, will my right hon. Friend consider inviting its members to No. 10 Downing Street, so that she can explain that the only true medals worth winning are those for courage in defence of freedom, and that none of those are available in Moscow?

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary recently spoke to a number of people in a last plea to endeavour to get some of them to reconsider their decision. We must now leave


the matter to them. I note that as the days go by some of the athletes who had intended to go are now reconsidering their decision. Some have announced that they will not go. I believe that as more news emerges from Afghanistan the movement not to go may increase. I wonder what we would feel if this country had been invaded but athletes from nearby Europe nevertheless went to the Moscow Olympics to honour the country that had invaded this country.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Prime Minister support Chancellor Schmidt's proposal of a three-year freeze on missiles, both NATO and Warsaw Pact? Does not the decision to deploy cruise missiles here, regardless, conflict with this mutually advantageous proposal?

The Prime Minister: I am reliably informed that Chancellor Schmidt has made no such suggestion, and that he adheres totally to the agreement in NATO. With regard to theatre nuclear forces, before Christmas the whole of NATO asked the Warsaw Pact countries if we could together negotiate a reduction in theatre nuclear forces. That suggestion was turned down. Chancellor Schmidt's policy with regard to TNF—I am not responsible for his policy, but I made inquiries following the reported passage in the press—is exactly that pronounced by NATO. It does not differ in a single fact.

Mr. Paul Dean: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the leading industrial nations are greatly encouraged by the decisive manner in which Her Majesty's Government are tackling deep-seated economic problems, and that they now intend to follow Great Britain's example? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will ignore the strident voices of opposition, from whatever quarter they may come.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am pleased that the policies that we are following were endorsed thoroughly by the economic summit as being the sound policies that will eventually produce results. A large number were the policies that the IMF insisted that this country should follow, but the Government of the day did not have the guts to put them into action.

Mr. Faulds: If the right hon. Lady was convinced that the OPEC countries and their financial resources could, and should, work to give help to the underdeveloped world, why was she so unresponsive to the call to hold a world conference between the underdeveloped world, the industrial world and the OPEC countries? Would there not be some advantage even in the involvement of the Soviet Union at such a conference, as a means of lessening present world tensions?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, when we considered whether there should be what I would call a Brandt summit, it so happened that I did not speak. My colleagues at the summit felt that the time was not right for such a summit. It is a mistake to believe that the answer to everything is another summit as soon as possible. It raises enormous hopes long before there has been sufficient preparation for a summit. There is point in having a summit only when we have gone a long way towards preparing for it with all the countries involved, so that there are some positive proposals which are likely to be accepted at that stage. We have not reached that stage yet. Therefore, we said that we would review the policies and the procedures and that we would reconsider the matter at next year's summit.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the continuing gravity of the situation in the Middle East, and the world-wide welcome for the recent European initiative, can my right hon. Friend say whether she and the other European leaders were able to discuss the matter with President Carter, particularly the need to follow up the communiqué with a dialogue with all the relevant parties to the conflict?

The Prime Minister: That matter was not discussed among the seven of us. It was primarily an economic summit, although we departed from it to discuss the Afghanistan question in view of the serious problems associated with it. However, those of us who were present and belong to Europe went no further than we did in the communiqué of the previous week. We understand that the United States regards that as trying to help with the Camp David process, which is still very much alive.

Mr. Marks: Did the Heads of Government give any consideration to the future


of Afghanistan after the Soviet troops leave? Have they any proposals to make and have they met any of the Afghan leaders?

The Prime Minister: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave the lead on that matter several weeks ago by suggesting a state of neutrality. Beyond that, the important thing is to try to get the Soviet troops out. Then it will be for the Afghan people to decide their own future, but only when they are free to do so. They cannot have things imposed upon them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether at the summit it was recalled that the last time the Soviet Union announced a withdrawal of troops it was from Europe and that that was followed almost at once by the invasion of Afghanistan?

The Prime Minister: We had that incident very much in mind. On the last occasion on which a small withdrawal was announced it was heavily displayed on the television screens. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it was not long between that withdrawal and the invasion of Afghanistan. I think we have every reason to by sceptical about the present proposed withdrawal and to reserve judgment on whether it means anything or whether it was a ploy just because we were meeting in Venice.

Mr. Pavitt: During the discussions on Afghanistan, was any consideration given to the rather unique refugee problem involved in animal husbandry? Does the Prime Minister recall that the frontiers between Afghanistan and Baluchistan—Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province, on the one hand, and Soviet Uzbekistan, on the other—mean that animals move from one side to the other in order to obtain fodder? The big problem in Baluchistan at present relates not only to food and medical supplies for the refugees but also to the fact that the animals which accompany the refugees require help with feeding stuffs. That does not occur in respect of any other refugee problem in the world.

The Prime Minister: I must confess that we did not discuss that particular problem, although I do not doubt its importance. I think that it is part of a

larger problem, in that there are a number of ethnic groups which span the borders of countries and have been accustomed to moving to and fro very easily. Of that we are very much aware. Our problem at present is to try to get food, aid and help to the refugees. However, I have not the slightest doubt that, if the presence of a large number of animals is known, that factor will also be taken into account.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to make their questions as succinct as possible so that I can call more of them.

Mr. Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in her bilateral conversations with President Carter, he asked her to use her influence with her European opposite numbers to get the lamentable, misguided, cynical and immoral policy towards the PLO—which will ultimately lead to bestowing de facto recognition on it—withdrawn or changed?

The Prime Minister: No, but President Carter and myself totally and utterly condemn terrorism as a political weapon wherever it occurs. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that.

Mr. Straw: When will it dawn on the Prime Minister that her policies, which are deepening the recession, not only make unemployment worse but make inflation worse and push up borrowing? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the 60,000 low-wage, high-productivity textile workers who have been thrown on the dole during the last year will, in terms of unemployment benefit and tax loss, cost£280 million a year, which is far more than the cost of a sensible support scheme to keep those people in work? When will she do her arithmetic and come forward with policies which keep people in work and keep inflation down?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the question about a deepening recession, the top priority must be to reduce inflation, otherwise we shall end up with a very much deeper recession than we will have if we tackle the problem now. In so far as I have been asked about borrowing, all the invitations have been to increase spending, thereby putting up borrowing.


Everything I am doing is designed to reduce borrowing, which will ultimately get inflation down.
As to the hon. Gentleman's question on textiles, he knows that we are honouring every sentence of the multi-fibre arrangement, which was negotiated by the previous Government, and that we are also taking advantage of the opportunity to negotiate new quotas. We are doing a number of other things, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, to try to assist the textile industry, and in addition have introduced a short-time working compensation scheme.

Mr. Farr: As one of the themes of the conference was the alternative use of different forms of energy, when my right hon. Friend leaves the House this afternoon will she send for the papers relating to the amount of money that we spend on research into electric vehicle production? She will find that it is absolutely derisory and that it is a lot less than that spent by our European and United States competitors. Will she look into this exciting sphere to see whether she can give the idea a new drive?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly have a look at that matter again. However, one must also generate the electricity for the cars. Sooner or later it comes down to generating from coal, nuclear, oil or gas sources, although there is a certain amount of hydro-electric generation. But I shall certainly have a look at the matter again.

Mr. Hardy: The right hon. Lady's answers a few moments ago seemed to suggest that she was unaware of the substantial improvements in productivity in the British coal industry. In view of the inadequacy of her understanding, and in view of the achievements, are not we entitled to call upon her to fulfil the international agreement and reconsider the terms of the Coal Industry Bill, if only to remove a rather inflexible time scale from that provision?

The Prime Minister: I am very well aware of the substantial improvements in productivity in the coal industry, and I welcome them. With respect, such improvements have so far not been reflected in a lessening of the increase in price. Indeed, one of the problems with

the price of electricity relates to the substantially increased price of coal which the electricity industry has to pay.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread and solid support for the priority which she has given to squeezing out inflation? In the West Midlands, that squeeze is being felt much more by the private sector, despite the fact that wage awards are lower and redundancies higher in the private sector than in the public sector.

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware that some of the private sector companies which have had low wage claims have strong feelings about high public sector wage awards. That is one of the reasons why we have such comparatively high public expenditure at present, in spite of our efforts to reduce it. It is one of the factors that we must take into account in future public sector wage claims.

Mr. Dalyell: In her bilateral talks with President Carter, did the right hon. Lady discuss the£6,500 million Trident project? What are the objections to a Green Paper on Trident incorporating the paper by Mr. Michael Quinlan to the Treasury defence material section?

The Prime Minister: I did not discuss that matter and, therefore, the rest of the question does not arise.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the robust attitude taken by all the nations at the summit, as expressed in their subsequent communiqué. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the concessionary credit facilities referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) were discussed at the meeting and, if not, why not, bearing in mind that if we are able to impose sanctions against Iran why can we not impose similar restrictions upon trade with the Soviet Union? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to use some of the massive resources from the North Sea to aid private industry more directly? Private industry is suffering severely at the moment as a result of the high level of interest rates.

The Prime Minister: With regard to credit rates for export credit cover, we observed that a consensus existed. We


approved of that but did not take the matter any further.
With regard to sanctions against Russia because of her activities in Afghanistan, the reason for our not proceeding further with restrictions is that we do not believe that we could achieve a united response to the imposition of further sanctions. Without a united response, trade could be badly damaged in this country. Revenues from the North Sea go straight into the Treasury and the Exchequer. They have already been taken into account and, in spite of those revenues, we are having to borrow this year between£8 billion and£9 billion.

Mr. Douglas: Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Lady and her colleagues in Venice concluded that there will be zero growth in the international economy and that the squeezing out of inflation means that we must try to do a deal with the OPEC countries whereby those countries might abandon their plan to keep the oil in the ground and invest in fruitful activities in the West? How do we square that with negative growth in the international economy?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first question, we recognise that the increases in the price of oil, of about 100 per cent., which have taken place in the last year must almost inevitably lead to a world recession, as the vast price increases in 1973–74 led to world recession in 1974–75. When one is paying so much more for one commodity, there is less to spend on other commodities. There is absolutely no way round that problem.
With regard to OPEC, we would not necessarily put the point that way. In the last year there has been an excess of supply over demand for oil but that has not followed the normal market process of reducing the price for the simple reason that people are now so afraid that they will not be able to get oil in future that they are prepared to pay almost any price for it in order to keep their lines of supply open.
We are in an extremely difficult position. Whereas the previous sharp increase in oil prices stopped after a time, and the real price of oil fell over a number of years, the producers now seem to have learnt how to achieve the requisite income

by putting up the price and reducing the output of oil. We have not, I am afraid, come to any arrangement or agreement with the producers. We can only urge upon them the great damage that their policies are doing not only to the Western world but also to the developing countries.
I am very much aware that this is the key issue. That was why we spent so much time on it at the summit. But we cannot tell the OPEC countries what to do. We can only tell them that their policies are damaging the interests of the Western world and of the developing world. We have been trying to engage the OPEC countries in dialogue on this issue for some time, but they have refused.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend confident that, on the energy front, President Carter will succeed in reducing American oil consumption instead of simply talking about it? On the broader economic front, is it realistic to formulate a world programme for energy, trade and the rest without including one-quarter of the world population, namely, the Chinese people?

The Prime Minister: President Carter is determined to do all that he can to reduce the consumption of oil in the United States. He will, of course, need to take Congress and the people with him. One of the problems is that, whereas in about 1970 the United States did not import oil because she was self-sufficient, she now imports 7 million barrels of oil a day. That places a tremendous strain upon world resources.
We must, of course, take China into account. China has considerable reserves of oil and is carrying out further exploration. Some of the oil companies in the West are involved in that business. However, I doubt whether China's supplies will ever come on to the world market. China will need most of her own oil.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will ask short, sharp questions, I shall call them all. If not, I shall not be able to do that.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Prime Minister aware that her statement today about the economy was invalidated prior to her delivering it by the announcement of the obscene unemployment figures? Is she


aware that the anger and the disturbances that manifested themselves in the Chamber today will pale into insignificance compared with the anger and the disturbances that will manifest themselves in the country if unemployment continues to rise? Does she not think that the announcement of today's unemployment figures marks the death of her economic policy? Even the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) came to the funeral today.

The Prime Minister: The answer to that question in short, sharp, succinct terms is "No, Sir."

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those parts of the communiqué which dealt with economic matters were agreed by Chancellor Schmidt, a man referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as a very experienced politician? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the Leader of the Opposition and his friends learn a few economic facts from Chancellor Schmidt?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I confirm that they were agreed to and endorsed unanimously by all seven Heads of Government, including Chancellor Schmidt.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Did the Prime Minister discuss with President Carter his Government's policy of subsidising domestic oil? Did she point out to him shortly and sharply the effects that that policy is having on imports into this country and how it is damaging the textile, chemical and other industries?

The Prime Minister: That subject was discussed, though not directly, in bilateral talks and it is a factor that one takes very much into account during the debates. I should point out that President Carter is doing all that he can to take world price increases into account in relation to United States oil pricing policy. I believe that the United States will come into line with world prices in 1981. However, President Carter can go no further, or faster, than public opinion will allow him.

Viscount Cranborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways in which the developed world can help less developed countries is to make sure that tariffs are lowered?

If my right hon. Friend agrees with that, how can she square the oft-repeated view of the Labour Party that tariffs should be raised with its equally oft-repeated view that we should help the Third world as much as we can?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. At the summit we observed that we all engage in two kinds of debate in our Parliaments. One of them concerns the need to increase aid to developing countries. We all want to give more aid and trade help. The other debate concerns trade and industry in our own countries, with everyone demanding increased protectionism. My hon. Friend is on to a very important point. Often those who are most vociferous in demanding increased aid for the developing countries are most vociferous in demanding reduced trade.

Mr. Welsh: May I ask the right hon. Lady about paragraph 12 of the communiqué, which says:
Together we intend to double coal production …
We in this country are part of that "we". Will the right hon. Lady consider withdrawing the Coal Industry Bill, having another look at it and giving the industry more money so that we can double our production by 1990, as the communiqué asks?

The Prime Minister: The precise point of that was "together", because we recognised that we already have and use larger proportions of coal in our fuel economy than any other country. The countries which, in the main, will increase and double their output of coal by 1990 are the United States and Canada. The point was increased production and use. Some of the other countries will have substantially to increase their use. I think that we are way ahead in the proportion of our electricity that comes from coal and in our general use of coal. In so far as there are markets—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer succinctly both those questions that are asked properly and those that are asked from a sedentary position.
There is great scope for increased output in this country to export, if the price is competitive.

Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the international recognition of the potential of coal for energy saving will be widely welcomed in the mining industry and in mining communities? Bearing in mind all that she had said in reply to previous questions, will she nevertheless ensure that the momentum of investment in the industry and in research and development within it is maintained, and, if possible, improved?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is more than maintained. This year we are investing about£600 million in the coal industry. That is a very large sum. [Interruption.] £600 million is going into investment in the coal industry. The total external finance limit is even more—£834 million.

Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the disappointing lip service that appears to be paid to the report of the Brandt Commission, will the Prime Minister comment on the universal shame that is being expressed in this country, following last Thursday's BBC television programme, at the fact that her Government and other European Governments have failed to deliver essential relief aid that had been promised for refugees and others in drought-stricken Somalia?

The Prime Minister: We have a very good record when judged by the proportion of our gross domestic product that we give in aid to other countries—and, if I may respectfully say so, an extremely good record on both sides of the House for giving relief to refugees, wherever they are. I do not like to hear any reflection on any British Government on this aspect of our work.

Mr. Marlow: Since the Russians felt justified in giving arms and weapons to what they considered to be freedom fighters of North Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend say whether she discussed with her colleagues the possibility of giving arms—particularly ground-to-air missiles—to the freedom fighters of Afghanistan? I am not asking whether any decisions were taken, but was the matter discussed?

The Prime Minister: Only very much in the margins. That is a matter which, of course, we shall have to consider in

the future. At present there is a good deal of desertion from the Afghan forces, and deserters usually take arms with them.

Mr. Allen McKay: When the Prime Minister talks about cheap coal and our competitors, does she not realise that it is cheap coal because it receives a higher subsidy than British coal? Will she now answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Is she prepared to sit back and watch the closure of colleries for economic reasons rather than because of the exhaustion of reserves?

The Prime Minister: I think that the external finance limit to the coal industry—£834 million this year—is one of the biggest that we have for our nationalised industries—and heaven knows, the limits are big enough for some of the others as well. All of this has to be found from resources. We cannot indefinitely keep open pits that have exhausted their useful life. [Interruption.] No Government have done so. Shortly—I think in about 1983—we shall have the new big Selby coal seam coming in. It is for the National Coal Board to judge which pits are economic and which are not, and how best it can bring up those that are not economic to being competitive.

Mr. George Grant: On the question of coal production, the Prime Minister has talked with forked tongue. Is she aware that the world study group, WOCOL, which has been meeting for 18 months and comprises the 16 leading industrial nations, has stressed the need to increase coal production threefold by 1990? Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, I ask the Prime Minister to read the deliberations this morning of the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill and seriously to consider increasing the financial limits that she has placed in that Bill so that increased coal production in the United Kingdom will be possible.

The Prime Minister: Of course I should have liked to increase coal production. That does not obviate the need for having that production taking place as efficiently as possible. The amount of capital investment that the British people have put into the coal industry over the


years—I remember standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box during the time when we had Dick Marsh's fuel policy and we were writing off investments in the coal industry—is a measure of its faith in that industry. We also have to pay the price of the coal that is mined. That is one of the factors that have raised the price of electricity very sharply indeed.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, having listened very carefully to her answers, it seems to me that as a result of the summit what the people of the industrialised world and, indeed, the people of the developing world are being offered is higher unemployment and no relief from poverty or, indeed, hunger in certain cases? In view of the fact that she referred to the need for a summit in 12 months' time, perhaps I may put it to her that it is wrong to wait 12 months for another summit, and that this has been a tragically missed opportunity, because the summit was not properly prepared. It is merely a recipe for recession and for slump. Will the right hon. Lady consider, with her fellow Heads of Government and State, setting aside personal representatives over the next six months to work out policies that will deal with inflation in ways that will not increase unemployment, that will ensure that we get a proper approach to the OPEC countries in the way that has been done before, with success—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Rubbish.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it.
May I put seriously to the right hon. Lady that 12 months is too long to wait for another summit? Will she consider six months' good, hard preparation from now, a meeting in the new year, and offering the world some new hope?

The Prime Minister: I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should be so critical of the other six Heads of Government as to say that he is right and they are all wrong.

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed questions on this statement to go on for much longer than usual. I do not want the House to think that it is a precedent. [Interruption.] No, it is not a precedent—not in my mind, and that is the important place.

MANSION BLOCKS PURCHASE

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to define a new class of company which occupants of flats in a privately owned mansion block may form with the objects of purchasing and managing the block; to empower the local authority to issue a compulsory purchase order to acquire the block for immediate resale to such a company; to give discretion to the Housing Corporation, where such an order has been made, to certify that the company is competent to purchase and manage the block; and to require the Secretary of State when such a certificate of competence has been issued to confirm the compulsory purchase order within two months.
The Bill which I am seeking to introduce goes significantly further than the Bill on co-ownership of flats which the House has given me leave to introduce in previous Sessions and which I tabled again at the beginning of the present Session. I should like to take in turn the four elements in the Long Title as set out on the Order Paper and to explain briefly what I hope to achieve.
First, I suggest that the Bill should establish a new class of company. This is because I think that the idea of forming a company is well understood in this country—better than co-ownership schemes and partnerships. If the House gives me leave to introduce the Bill, I hope to incorporate a schedule setting out a model memorandum and articles of association for such a company formed for the purpose of acquiring a mansion block. That is not difficult to do because there are so many examples of successful schemes which are now established in practice and where the memorandum and articles of association have been drawn up by expert firms of solicitors and have passed the test of time.
Secondly, I suggest that the local authority should be the body responsible for issuing the compulsory purchase order. This needs to be specified in the Bill because, obviously, it is outside normal practice, where compulsory purchase is concerned, for a local authority to seek to acquire a property with the object of immediate resale—in this case, resale to the tenants' association.
In passing, perhaps I may make the point that in such a proceeding no public expenditure is involved.
Third, I recommend that discretion be given to the Housing Corporation to issue a certificate of competence so that it can be clearly established that the association of tenants is competent to acquire the block and, subsequently, to manage it. Nothing would be more tragic than that tenants should overreach themselves and find that they cannot make a success of the project after they have acquired it and, perhaps, put more money into it than they are able to afford.
By choosing that the Housing Corporation should be the body which gives the certificate of competence, we can ensure that there is continuity of policy, even where local authority outlooks on the matter may differ, and a uniform application of the rules.
Fourth, I require that the Secretary of State should confirm the compulsory purchase order within two months. Time is often of very great importance where negotiations are impending for the disposal of a mansion block. It is important that a limit should be put on the amount of time which the Secretary of State can use for his deliberations on the whole matter. It seems to me that a period of two months gives time for the Department to look into the circumstances and to satisfy itself fully that the conditions that I hope to incorporate in the Bill have been properly satisfied.
I have not mentioned in my Long Title an important question which I dealt with in my Bill on the co-owner-ship of flats. This concerns valuation. I am not in any circumstances proposing that the Bill should become a vehicle for the tenants to acquire the mansion block in which they live at less than the market price. It is important that the landlord and the tenants' association should be seen to be arriving at a perfectly fair deal. In my prevous Bill I suggested a formula for arriving at a valuation which, I have been advised by highly competent experts, is a reasonable rough and ready guide. No doubt, in particular circumstances, if the district valuer was impressed by the case put forward by either the tenants' association or the landlord, where there were special factors to be taken into account they could be reflected in the price.
On the subject of valuation, I shall seek to repeat in the present Bill the provisions that I made in my Bill on the co-ownership of flats in regard to the disposal of individual flats. The tenants should not be exposed to the temptation to make a quick capital gain as soon as the block has been acquired by the association, by moving out and selling their part of the premises to the highest bidder. Where a tenant attempted to do that, the capital gain should accrue to the tenants' company and not the tenant. The capital gain that the tenants might be able to achieve on disposal should be phased over a period of years so that one would not unsettle the whole composition of the block by proceeding to acquire it in the way that I suggest.
There are two points that I should like to make to the House in recommendation of my Bill. All over London, and indeed in many other parts of the country, there are mansion blocks, some of which may be 50 or 100 years old. Many of them are in poor condition and are rapidly deteriorating. A lot of money must be found from somewhere if these blocks are to be rescued from decay and eventual demolition. The House should take an interest in this problem and recognise that the money must come from somewhere as a matter of urgency.
I do not think that landlords, especially after years of rent control, are likely to be in a position to find the necessary money in very many cases. Of course, we have a special problem in inner London where speculators are buying mansion blocks with a view to turning the tenants out and putting the blocks to a different use. It is a problem that we call creeping "hotelisation". This is a special inner London problem, where there is plenty of money to alter the character of a block. However, for the most part, we have the problem that these buildings are deteriorating and the landlords are not in a position to find the money to put them right.
I do not think that we can ask local authorities to find the money through improvement or conversion grants, although there might be scope for the Department to study the introduction of a special grant for the purpose of improving the common parts of mansion blocks. Such a grant would be more in the nature of a loan than a grant, because the money


would be repaid to the ratepayers over a period from an increase in the rates.
However, the bulk of the money to maintain these blocks must be found over the course of time by the tenants themselves. I am persuaded that the only way in which we can ask the tenants to find the necessary money, sometimes very large sums, is when they can see for themselves that by finding the money they are investing in their own bricks and mortar and not simply enriching the landlord, with whom perhaps they may be on very bad terms.
There is also a social problem on which I should like to touch briefly. The House has tackled the aspirations of people living in houses in private ownership through the enfranchisement of leaseholders. We are dealing currently with houses in public ownership and giving the tenants the right to buy. Likewise, the tenants of flats in public ownership will also be given the right to buy. That leaves people living in flats in private ownership in an anomalous and unfair position. They are at a disadvantage. What we have offered to them is security of tenure. However, in times of inflation such as we have now, security of tenure can be a very hollow thing. Rents, service charges and rates are rising, in particular parts of London very rapidly, but the incomes of people living in flats are very often not rising and they cannot rise as fast as the rate of inflation. Sooner or later they face the time when, in spite of their having security of tenure, they must leave. At that time they have no resources, in many cases, with which to acquire anything else and they face destitution and homelessness.
There would be two particular benefits to society if the House accepted my Bill. Existing landlords would be encouraged to come to agreements with their tenants on terms which are fair to both sides and under arrangements which are properly supervised, and speculators who thinking of buying mansion blocks in London for the sake of a quick capital gain—at the expense of their tenants—would be encouraged to put their hot money elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. John Hunt, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Martin Stevens, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Mark Wolfson.

MANSION BLOCKS PURCHASE

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to define a new class of company which occupants of flats in a privately owned mansion block may form with the objects of purchasing and managing the block; to empower the local authority to issue a compulsory purchase order to acquire the block for immediate resale to such a company; to give discretion to the Housing Corporation, where such an order has been made, to certify that the company is competent to purchase and manage the block; and to require the Secretary of State when such a certificate of competence has been issued to confirm the compulsory purchase order within two months; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed.[Bill 227.]

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

TRAINING OF PERSONS EMPLOYED BY PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS

'(1) The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient to ensure that each programme contractor makes adequate provision for the training of persons employed by him in the preparation or making of programmes.

(2) The general report of the Authority's proceedings during any financial year prepared by them in pursuance of main section 31(3) shall include a description of the provision made by the various programme contractors for the training of persons employed by them in the preparation or making of programmes.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office, (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we shall take Government amendment No. 94.

Mr. Brittan: New clause 1 is a Government amendment, following my undertaking in Committee during the discussion on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the proposed new clause 1 then tabled by the official Opposition.
In Committee a number of hon. Members expressed concern about the level of provision for training in broadcasting skills within the independent sector of broadcasting. It was suggested that the independent companies were not doing enough in setting up their own training facilities and that all too often staff who had been trained by the BBC would be poached by them. It would be helpful to the House if I gave some indication, even though I shall be reiterating points made in Committee, of what the Independent Broadcasting Authority is doing already to train broadcasters.
In the current round of ITV franchise renewals the authority is asking all applicants for contracts to include in their applications a statement of their training plans. Moreover, it is making it clear in the contract particulars which it has issued that the new contracts will include provisions to ensure that there are proper arrangements for staff training in the independent television system and that proper amounts of money and staff resources are available for that purpose. I also understand that the existing companies are introducing revised arrangements for the co-ordination of training throughout the system. That is being done through the Independent Television Companies Association—ITCA.
The IBA is paying particular attention to training for independent local radio. It has been doing so for some considerable time. Every year the IBA receives from those companies whose profits are high enough to attract secondary rental, proposals for schemes the expenses of which can be offset in whole or in part against the secondary rentals which would otherwise have been paid.
The IBA encourages the companies concerned to include in the schemes plans for training. Companies which have been involved include LBC, Capital Radio, BRMB in Birmingham, Piccadilly in Manchester and Radio City in Merseyside. The schemes are mainly intended for on-station training, although Radio City has sent staff to a school of journalism in Cardiff. Whereas local training is the general rule, the IBA's involvement, through approval of the schemes for purposes of secondary rental, helps to ensure consistent standards.
This year, the IBA has set aside money from its secondary rental income to be used to help finance training schemes which those companies not paying secondary rental are being encouraged to introduce. In addition, companies have established training schemes on their own initiative which are paid for as part of their normal expenditure. Hon. Members may be aware of the initiative taken by Capital Radio in establishing a broadcasting school funded, with the agreement of the IBA, out of secondary rental payments to provide training primarily, although not exclusively, for Independent London Radio.
Despite the evidence that the authority is taking seriously its responsibilities to provide training, the Government accept that it would, at the same time, be advantageous to impose a statutory requirement. The new clause will require the IBA, in drawing up the new contracts for the ITV franchises, to include such provision as is necessary to ensure that the contractors make adequate provision for the training of those employed in the preparation or making of programmes. Contracts for ILR companies will have to be similarly amended.
The new franchise period of ITV contractors runs from 1 January 1982 and we propose that the provision will apply from that date both to ITV and to ILR. Having imposed such a statutory provision, there is much to be said for adding a requirement that the IBA should report on compliance with the provision. That is why subsection (2) of the new clause places a duty on the IBA to include in its annual report a description of the provision made by the contractors for such training. Such an obligation focuses attention on the area concerned, and provides a stimulant to new development. That will enable the IBA to monitor more effectively the overall picture of the training provision made by different contractors.
I turn briefly to amendment No. 94. It is a small, consequential amendment which arises from the differing contractual arrangements relating to ITV and ILR contractors. The former will be operating on the basis of new contracts from 1 January 1982, and we intend to bring the new clause into effect so that the contracts will contain provision for training from that date. ILR contracts run from a variety of dates, and will not be subject to wholesale renewal in the same way. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that such contracts shall be deemed to have been modified to take account of the obligation to provide training, in compliance with the new clause, as soon as that clause is brought into force. That is a straightforward consequence of the introduction of a statutory obligation on contractors to provide training. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the House.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are grateful to the Government for intro

ducing the clause. It is one of the few arguments in which we succeeded in Committee. I looked at the report of our discussions, and saw that we had in mind more formal training arrangements on the grounds that the BBC runs an excellent training programme, and that there was a strong feeling that the independent companies poached staff from the BBC.
During the past 20 years most of industry has moved away from the idea of training as sitting next to Fred and Nellie—or in terms of independent broadcasting, Nigel and Fiona—to the realisation that something more detailed is required. I understand from the Minister's speech that a provision will be included in the contracts to ensure that, at the end of the day, we shall be able to assess whether what has been done adds up to what we had in mind. Some of his remarks seemed to be mere matters of principle. I was glad to note the undertaking by the ITCA about co-ordination, although I would have preferred that to have been done by the IBA. I was also glad to note what had been done by some of the local broadcasting companies, especially LBC.
The new clause is an important step forward, although it does not go the whole way to meet our requirements. However, I thank the Government for introducing the new clause.

Sir Paul Bryan: I welcome the new clause. Quite frankly, I do not think that it will have any great practical effect, but it will bring comfort to those who labour under the delusion that all training in broadcasting is carried out by the BBC. I hope that at the end of my five minutes I shall have dispelled that illusion.
Judged by results, training in British broadcasting must be good. Whether or not we all agree that British broadcasting is the best in the world, it is certainly among the best. It compares well in technology and artistic merit with the product of any other organisation in the world. Our programmes, whatever their other faults may be, do not show evidence of a shortage of technical skills. It is not an industry on which we have had a Monty Finniston report deploring the shortage of skills, and citing a long history of deficient training.
It is noteworthy that in Committee, al


though we discussed a long series of difficulties that might arise before the establishment of the fourth channel, no one cited a shortage of talent. On the contrary, time and time again hon. Members said that the new fourth channel would be an outlet for existing talents already trained and available. That is fairly remarkable. To put the size of the operation into perspective, the BBC broadcasts for 9,600 hours per year on its two channels. The ITV, although it has only one channel, broadcasts for no fewer than 8,300 hours per year. This large amount is due to its exceptional production of regional and local programmes. The fourth channel will require between 2,000 and 3,000 hours, which is a heavy burden to put on an industry the size of which I have described. However, it is clear that that will be taken in the industry's stride. We shall not require any crash training programmes. The industry is ready to take on the new assignment. We could ask whether the new people will be trained by the BBC. It is true that, in the early days of ITV some 25 years ago, the independent companies depended on the BBC for their talent. That was inevitable. The BBC had the monopoly and was the only source of skills. The monopoly was broken, and it was marvellous for the ITV companies to have somewhere from which they could draw their skills. It was also marvellous for the employees in the television industry because, for the first time, they had more than one employer to whom they could be beholden. Before long there were 15 companies offering jobs and training.
I see that the contract application of the company in which I have declared an interest on a number of occasions, namely, Granada, cites in the chapter on training some 20 alumni of Granada who have achieved positions of distinction throughout the industry. We have the BBC drama producer, Jonathan Powell, the head of series and serials in the BBC, the controller of drama LWT, the controller of features and current affairs LWT, the controller of light entertainment Thames, the head of documentaries Thames, the head of drama Yorkshire and the director of programmes Southern. In the freelance world we have Jeremy Isaacs, one-time con

troller of Thames, and so on. A vast number of top people in television started with Granada. I do not doubt that other companies could cite the same kind of experience.
We do not say "How disastrous. We have trained all these people and lost their talent to somebody else." We are pleased that this has happened. It is a healthy movement and a two-way traffic as well. Of 80 producers and directors functioning in Granada now, we trained 64, but we have 16 from other companies, including the BBC. This is a healthy movement and I hope that it will go on.
Let us get the figures in proportion to see whether there has been a flood of talent from the BBC to the ITV companies. The BBC employs about 17,000 people in television, whereas ITV employs about 14,000 people.
The 1980 BBC handbook points out that the Corporation has 964 people earning £10,000 or more. I give these figures to illustrate the size of the employee force about which we are talking. In 1979, in. the salary bracket £6,000 to £10,000 a year, ITV gained 26 people from and lost six to the BBC. In the £10,000 to £15,000 a year bracket, ITV gained from the BBC five people and lost one. In the £15,000 upwards bracket, ITV gained four people from the BBC and lost none. These figures are very small in relation to the size of the work force. There is no flood of trained staff going from the BBC to the ITV companies. It is a very small trickle. Those facts show the story as it is, not as people imagine it to be.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever may be said about the more glamorous positions in television and the reversal of roles there over the last 15 years, the area now causing concern is the movement—and it is more than a trickle—of people at technical levels—videotape editors and so on—where the BBC cannot compete on salary levels?

Sir P. Bryan: I am not greatly moved by that. The same handbook states:
Another telling point is that in 1979 the BBC both lost and recruited approximately 1,800 full-time monthly staff"—
that is, secretarial and clerical grades apart. Thus the actual turnover is very


big compared with what goes or is lost to the ITV companies.
I hope that the clause will not cause the IBA to lay down in too minute detail the form that the training should take. Trainees in this industry do not greatly savour the lecture room approach. They are critical of courses which do not offer direct access to television and film facilities. Therefore, we do not want anything too formal. I should have liked the ITV companies and the BBC jointly to organise and finance an organisation for the training of, say, engineers. That would be a great advance. I understand that this approach has been made to the BBC but it has been turned down. My receipe is to leave the system much as it is now. However, I welcome the clause.

Mr. Clement Freud: I share the views initially expressed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) in welcoming the new clause.
I take arms against the statement by the hon. Member for Howden about the IBA not setting out in great detail the kind of training that will be required. On the contrary, I hope that it sets out in very great detail the mininmum training required.
The Government were persuaded to bring in the new clause by the strength of the arguments of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and other hon. Members in Committee that this represented yet another instance in which the ITV companies did better than the BBC.
Those who are uncommitted commercially to the setting up of fourth channel feel passionately that the BBC must be allowed to compete honourably and equitably against the new channel. If 2,000 hours of television are to be provided annually by a fourth channel which will have the independent companies bringing forward programmes for transmission, it will be that much harder for the BBC to compete. The BBC looks to the House—to no one else—for added finance and it is bound by cash limits, which are the order of the day under this Government. Therefore, it is incredibly difficult for the BBC to compete with the

ITV companies which practise the economy of the market place.
I accept that Granada has done a great deal in training. Capital Radio is an enlightened station and has an enlightened school, but it has enough money to finance them. I was delighted to hear of the appointment of the chairman of Capital Radio to be the No. 2 man for the fourth channel. I hope that much will be learnt from his expertise.
The main concern of many hon. Members was the desire to give the BBC a chance of competing fairly. I listened carefully to the figures given by the hon. Member for Howden, but I share the distrust of the hon. Member for Derby, North about their accuracy. We all know that the cameraman, the floor manager and the videotape recording staff receive significantly more money from ITV companies than the BBC is able to offer. We must ensure that the new companies are forced by statute to assume the same responsibilities as are currently vested in the BBC. It is for that reason that I welcome the new clause. I sincerely hope that it will spell out most carefully the responsibility of the new company.

Mr. Michael Morris: I did not have the privilege of listening to the debates in Committee, but I have read the proceedings.
I should like to put two questions to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. First, will he clarify the situation for independent radio contractors whose contracts will not come up for renewal until some time after the contracts for channel 1 ITV and presumably channel 4?

Mr. Freud: What has that to do with it? Does it cover radio?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Yes, it does.

Mr. Morris: It does cover radio.
5 pm
Secondly, I am concerned about the phrase "or making of programmes". I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) that one of the problems in the existing ITCA companies relates to the production of commercials. The average cost of a commercial is about £50,000 for a 30-second commercial. Those who work in the business—I declare an interest at a director of an


advertising agency—know that part of the cost is due to heavy manning levels that are dictated by the combination of actions between management and unions in the industry.
Because of the provisions in the statute for education and preparation, the independent producers will have foisted upon them the existing manning levels in terms of cameramen, lighting men, clapperboardmen and so on. Those with experience of the industry know only too well that there is heavy overmanning in the production of commercials, and, I am led to believe, in the production of programmes. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will encourage the IBA to say what progress is being made in terms of training to ensure that those overmanning levels are eliminated in the interests of future training of people in the industry.

Mr. Whitehead: I very much welcome the new clause. At an early stage in our proceedings it has met the desire that was voiced on both sides of the Committee. It is now only necessary to put on record our hope that the IBA will take it up in the spirit in which it has been introduced, and not pay too close heed to the siren song of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who suggested that we should not look too closely at the levels of training and manning. We understand that, and we understand why some of the television companies feel—as some of their alumni have gone back to, or for the first time have moved towards, the BBC—that perhaps they have done their bit for British broadcasting as a whole. The free transfer of a Russell Harty, a Jimmy Hill or the inestimable Jeremy Isaacs does not necessarily compensate for the slow erosion of skilled technical talent at levels at which the BBC cannot compete.
If the present salary differentials—between 30 and 80 per cent.—are maintained, and if the BBC sticks to the level of settlements that it is proposing in the current pay round, skilled talent will continue to leave the corporation and move over to the other side. If that happens, the least we can do is to make it incumbent on the companies, which are all individually wealthy, to ensure that they are accountable to the authority for

training programmes. Clause 1 makes that provision, and, as such, it should be welcomed.

Mr. Brittan: The Government are glad that the new clause has been so well received, and I shall say no more about it, because it speaks for itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) raised two questions. The first related to existing radio contractors whose contracts do not expire on the same date. That point is covered by amendment No. 94, which ensures that such contracts will have been deemed to have been modified so as to take account of the obligation to provide training which is provided in the new clause as soon as that new clause is brought into effect.
On the second point raised by my hon. Friend, I have considerable sympathy with what he said about manning levels, but I cannot claim that that can be dealt with on the basis of a training obligation. I fear that manning levels are caused, not by inadequate training, but by industrial relations factors that cannot be met simply by educative processes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

INFORMATION AS TO TELEVISION PRO GRAMME CONTRACTS AND APPLICA TIONS FOR SUCH CONTRACTS.

'Main section 20 (information as to sound programme contracts and applications for such contracts) shall with the necessary modifications apply in relation to contracts for the provision of television programmes and applications for such contracts as it applies in relation to contracts for the provision of local sound broadcasts and applications for such contracts.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 88, in clause 23, page 19, line 44, insert
'in particular by causing to be published all tenders for contracts, whether by new applicants or existing contractors, and by providing facilities for the public to examine all such applications and re-applications.'
Government amendment No. 93.

Mr. Britain: The new clause fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee during discussion of the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. English). I undertook then to produce an amendment on Report that would broadly extend to television the requirements as to the provision of information that applied to radio under section 20 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. The new clause applies section 20 of that Act, with the necessary modifications, to the contracts between the IBA and its television programme contractors. That means that the IBA will be required to supply to any person on request, subject to any fee that it may reasonably require, a copy of any contract it has made for the provision of television broadcasts, a statement of the total number of applications received, and a copy of such parts of a successful contractor's application as relate to the character of the television programmes he proposes to provide. However, the authority will not be required to provide information about the sort of programme that the successful applicant intends to provide until after the authority has started to transmit the programmes—in other words, not until the contract has come into operation.
There has been growing public interest in the nature and content of contracts entered into by the IBA and its programme contractors, and in the extent to which the performance of contractors has matched up to them. Provision for information to be available about local radio contracts was introduced in the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972. It had not previously been thought necessary to make such provision for television contractors, but it seems reasonable and fair that the same provisions should now be extended to television contracts.
Government amendment No. 93 is consequential on the new clause, which requires the IBA to make information available about contracts and contract applications. It is right that the requirement should come into force as soon as possible, so that it can apply to the contracts that are to be awarded at the end of this year which will run from 1 January 1982.
I cannot commend amendment No. 88, put forward by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). That amendment would require the IBA, before entering into a programme contract, to publish all the applications for that contract and to provide facilities for the public to examine those applications. It would not be right to place a statutory requirement on the IBA to make available detailed information, including information of a commercially sensitive nature, relating to all applications for contracts.
I commend the new clause and the consequential amendment.

Mr. Whitehead: When the Minister saw my amendment No. 88 on the Amendment Paper, he should have asked "Why not?" not "Why?". At present the authority goes at least as far as, and probably slightly further than it is required to do under the terms of the new clause. I declare a non-financial interest as an unpaid consultant to one of the groups which would like to be the breakfast-time contractor for the commercial service. The views of the group which I advise should be published in full. Every interested citizen in any part of the country should have the opportunity to see who are involved, what their proposals are, and how they intend to carry them out.
The authority has published a precis of 44 applications for the 15 franchise areas and the eight breakfast-time franchises. I understand from the authority' that it is possible to go to its headquarters in Brompton Road and see the full applications. If that is so, there cannot be anything confidential that must be withheld from the public gaze. I see no reason why the authority cannot make available to citizens who are not within easy walking or riding distance of Brompton Road the information contained therein.
As we move towards the next stage of franchise applications we should consider how best to encourage the authority to do even more to ensure that the public examination and scrutiny of the would-be franchise holders is as exhaustive as possible. We lived through the 1967 franchise applications. We recollect some of the grandiose proposals aired at that time. We know what happened when the


proposals were translated into contracts. It is not enough to publish the contract that the authority makes with the successful applicant after the deal has been done. We want to know the terms of the deal.
I recall the axing of almost the entire programme staff at London Weekend Television within 12 months of the contract being signed and the franchise being granted. When the new programme controller, the late Cyril Bennett, was asked how he justified such an action, he said "The first duty of a television company is to survive." Unkind people were wont to remark that he should have said "The first duty of Cyril Bennett is to survive" since he had done so when all around him were slain.
This time round we must know precisely what the applicant companies propose. Some are sending glossy brochures to hon. Members. Some will ensure that at the regional public meetings all their pretensions are laid out for inspection. If I were challenging a well-heeled and well-established existing contractor I should put all my wares on display. We want to know more than that. We want to know what the existing companies proposed last time, what they propose this time and how that compares with the new challengers. We can do that only by a provision such as that in amendment No. 88. It is not sufficient to have a judicious selection from the various franchise applications. In the new spirit of these days the authority is willing to publish more. It will take one step further towards open broadcasting if we encourage it by accepting the amendment.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I support my hon. Friend's comments on amendment No. 88. I was encouraged when the Minister said that there is a growing public interest in the manner in which contracts for sound broadcasting and television are made. My task is made easier. I seek an assurance that the applications under consideration by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for extensions of existing franchises and new contracts have not been reduced to a charade by hitherto undisclosed undertakings by the IBA to existing independent television companies in relation to the fourth channel.
5.15 pm
Hon. Members might ask what I have in mind. Granada Television Company's submission in its contract application for the North-West of England, referring to Channel 4, states:
if the new service is to be scheduled in such a way as to damage ITV 1, then Granada will want to throw its full resources into maintaining the quality, appeal and revenue of the main ITV 1 service. We have no desire to go broke in an attempt to prove that the two channels need not be complimentary. However that may be, we rely on the good sense of the planners and those in charge of the fourth channel to recognise the inevitability of a system in which the two services must support and not inhibit each other. We already have undertakings that the health of the service as a whole will rate above the demands made by the fourth channel, should they be excessive.
That is an example of the IBA giving undertakings. I am not singling out Granada. I understand that such under-takings were given to all the major independent television companies when the negotiations proceeded in the autumn of 1979 on the £70 million which the independent television companies will provide to establish the new fourth channel.
A number of important points are raised. The IBA has given undertakings of which the House and the country are not aware. What is meant by the word "excessive?" Does it mean "successful?" Does it mean that, if the new fourth channel competes more than satisfactorily with the main ITV channel, certain action will be taken? Does it mean that, if the new fourth channel is successful, the £70 million contribution will be increased or decreased? The House and the public are entitled to know.
As the Minister recognises, there is a growing demand by the public that they should know the factors which influence the award of contracts. When competing for the extension of existing franchises the major independent companies are in a tremendously advantageous position. It seems that the IBA has assumed that the major companies will continue in existence, irrespective of the applications which are before it. It will be difficult for the Minister to reply if he has not got a copy of Granada's submissions. However, bearing in mind those difficulties, I should be grateful if he would write to me before the Bill goes to the other place. If any


of us are not satisfied, we can then brief our colleagues in the other place.

Sir Paul Bryan: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's views. However, I do not understand what he is worried about. We have had a series of debates and we have decided that the fourth channel will be paid for by the first channel. It follows that the first channel must be profitable if the fourth channel is to exist. That is what the phrase means; no more and no less.

Mr. Morris: That is a reasonable point. I do not wish to single out Granada. All major television companies were given the same undertakings. That fact emerged from the negotiations about the £70 million contribution that independent companies would provide for the new fourth channel. However, if undertakings have been given, we are entitled to know what they are.

Mr. Freud: I wholeheartedly support amendment No. 88, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). There is a growing demand for knowledge about what is going on. Amendment No. 88 is extremely relevant. I hope that the Minister will accept it and remember according to local authority legislation, a district council must publish details of planning applications. By the same token, it is only right that people should know what companies have promised to do if they get a franchise. I have always believed that parliamentarians should be bound by the Fair Trading Act. A person standing for election can promise anything. Once he has been elected, he need deliver nothing. Thank goodness, a Member of Parliament has inbuilt enemies who will remind him of election promises and statements, and point out what the hon. Member said and how little he has done.
It is right that a local company which applies for a franchise should give the maximum amount of information. I hope that the Minister will agree that amendment No. 88 is right. Perhaps he will explain how he will ensure that the publication that the amendment demands is effected. Will it be published in the form of a Diet of Worms, nailed to the nearest television studio; or will it be published in the form of an advertisement in the local newspaper? The public have a right

to know. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to show that he approves.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am never sure what a declaration of interest involves. I have no direct financial interest in any company that is involved with the applications. My only financial interest is one that is shared by many hon. Members. From time to time I appear on Grampian television in order to give the people of my area my deep political thoughts. I am paid reasonably well. However, one's idea of "reasonably" depends on one's finances. The next day I often feel that I should have got more.
I did not serve on the Committee, but I rise to speak because we are in great danger of causing the same type of unhappiness as resulted from the last round of applications for local radio stations. There was a great deal of unhappiness in my area about the way in which that allocation was handled. I accept that everything was done in the spirit of the Act. However, public meetings did not leave people feeling that there had been any open discussion about the awarding of contracts. Every applicant that wishes to participate in this brave new venture should publish, or have published, the details of the application, whether or not it is for breakfast-time television. I may add that the concept of breakfast-time television fills me with horror.
There should be proper public examination of all applications. Is it good enough to have a series of public meetings at which the wares are displayed and at which the personnel are open to public scrutiny and questioning? I accept that that is essential, but perhaps we should take a further step, involving legal examination of the contracts. Those of us who are involved in politics know that it is easy not to answer a difficult question at a public meeting. Indeed, Ministers are adept at not answering questions in this House. Such action is probably common. If I was directly involved in a company that was trying to get a franchise, I would dodge any difficult questions and put the best gloss on my wares.
Perhaps we could have several smaller public inquiries at which those interested could attend and at which counsel could be employed in order to press the companies to commit themselves and to put


on record their answers to difficult questions.
At present, once a contract has been awarded that is the end of it. There is no public pronouncement of why company "A" was chosen instead of company "B". The public are not told that company "A" was chosen because of its programmes, its number of staff and its training facilities. It is not told that the company was chosen because it was more financially sound, and so on. If companies do not match up to the glossy material that they have produced, they cannot be pinned down. The public do not know the grounds upon which the contract was given.
Immense amounts of money and immense profits are involved. Television is probably the most influential of all media. The information that it disseminates and the quality its programmes affects all our lives in many ways. In a democratic society we must ensure that companies are not just paying lip service to the terms of the contract. We must ensure that they mean what they say. Public participation is becoming a hackneyed phrase. If one speaks to people, one finds a thirst for knowledge. They wish to know how they are governed and how decisions are taken. We are told that we are moving into a system of open government. However, I have not seen many signs of that. If we are moving into an era of public participation and scrutiny of companies before they win contracts, and more importantly after they have done so, Amendment No. 88 should be accepted. However, I am not sure that it goes far enough.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I must put it on the record that I have no financial interest at the moment in any company which is competing for the franchise, although I sometimes wish that I had.
I wish to support amendment No. 88. I believe that it is crucially important that the basically anti-democratic structure of the communication medium of broadcasting should be broken down. The last people who are consulted about the one-way communication, which is the nature of the medium, are members of the audience. Of course there are struc

tures of consultation, such as ringing up the television station, writing letters, taking part in one of those innumerable "phone-ins", or asking for a record to be played, but all the communication from the audience is geared to the message that is going out. Therefore, the charge stands that the medium is basically anti-democratic. A small elite of people talk to the population at large. The only opportunity for democratic control of that medium occurs when the major public asset of broadcasting time is doled out to various corporate interests, with the exceptional occasional franchise that is given to community groups. As we have seen in the case of Cardiff Broadcasting, far too often the power of capital dictates to those community groups as the station develops.
It is essential to have full public debates on tenders for contracts so as to enable the potential audience to have some kind of voice in the decision on the material that will be transmitted on this one-way system for five years, or whatever the period of the franchise may be. The obvious way of discussing this issue would be for the cases put forward by the various applicants to be screened or broadcast. The Minister laughs, but this is basic to the whole medium. The obvious thing is not to publish the material in great tomes just to be hidden away, with a synopsis being made available to the public, but for the cases on behalf of the various applicants to be screened or broadcast, thus giving a full opportunity for there to be a direct public response to the message. Of course, we have not yet got to that level of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It is still a one-way system. But at least the publication of tenders for contracts and full discussion in public of what is being proposed, as suggested in amendment No. 88, would bring us part of the way to democratisation of the medium. I do not see how the Government can object to this.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: We welcome the Government's new clause because it is essential that there should be as much public disclosure as possible of information about television programmes, contracts and applications for such contracts. It can only increase public and parliamentary confidence in the structure of broadcasting, and in


directly improve the standard of it. Disclosure is also important because as a result of these contracts the Treasury benefits handsomely through the levy and corporation tax. I hope that this admirable open attitude of the IBA will continue and be extended.
It is evident from the debate this afternoon that there are limitations on the Government's proposals which are causing some concern. I am extremely worried about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris). He said that he believes that there have been some secret undertakings. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on the several points that my right hon. Friend made. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is concerned about contracts already in existence. There seems to be a general feeling from the speeches that we have heard today that existing contracts, as well as new contracts, should have been covered by the new clause.
We know that a series of public meetings will be held in the autumn for opinion to be expressed on the programme proposals being made by all the applicants for the new franchise. I hope that these meetings will be very well advertised in local newspapers and that there is enough preliminary information placed in libraries and town halls about the matters under discussion. Our constituents may want to know how the contractors propose to explain to them the changing economic and industrial scene in which so many jobs are being lost and factories closed, and how the voice of public opinion on these issues can be expressed. There can be a full public discussion only if all the IBA contracts—both existing and future—are published, made fully available throughout the country and discussed. This would appear to be the general complaint of my hon. Friends this afternoon.
Television has acquired the status of our most important and influential news and communications system. There is every reason for the IBA to be as open and informative as possible about what it is doing on behalf of the general public and broadcasting. The Government have made a good start by producing the clause, but perhaps they will consider

carefully the points that have been made today with a view to extending the provisions.

Mr. Brittan: As I have said in Committee, the Government accept and recognise that there is an increasing degree of interest in the process whereby television and radio programme contractors are appointed. For that reason, we put forward the new clause and the associated amendment.
Some of the matters that have been raised in the debate go well beyond the question of the applications for contracts. I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not deal with those, although I take note of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) dealt specifically with the question of tenders for contracts and suggested that there should be a statutory obligation for more information to be provided than is laid down in the new clause. I make it quite clear that the Government are not opposed to the provision of more information. The question is as to the extent to which the provision of such information should be made a statutory obligation. That is a very different matter.
The IBA in many respects has indicated that it proposes to go further than the statutory implications that we are seeking to impose. That is something we very much welcome. The IBA has indicated its intention to make available for the public hearings that it will be holding the relevant sections of the contract applications. Therefore, it will ensure that the applicants' proposals for the sort of programme policy that they will follow will be made available to the public. That is absolutely right and proper. What will not be made available to the public and what will not be published is the financial and other confidential information, which is of an entirely different character from that which will be considered at the public meetings. The public meetings essentially will be concerned with the consideration of the kind of programmes that the companies which seek the franchise will offer to the public in the area—that is, the public interest in the matter—rather than the details relating to the financial decisions of the particular applicants for the franchise.
If one accepts that that is so, it is much better that the information relating


to the kind of programmes offered by those seeking the franchise should be made available on the IBA's own motion than that there should be a statutory obligation. From its policy the IBA has made it clear that that information will be made available. It is relevant information and should be made available. I welcome that, but I do not believe that it is necessary further to buttress it by a statutory obligation. If a statutory obligation was imposed, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate in a statute on a general basis between the type of information that the companies should be obliged to disclose with regard to programmes and the type of information that the IBA will need to scrutinise but which is of a different character and may involve considerations relating to competitive factors, and so on.

Mr. Whitehead: We are becoming increasingly alarmed by the Minister's definition of the word "relevant". If, for example, a submission contained glossy programme ideas but also contained, for the authority's information, the fact that the financial backing was to come from a dubious ring of secondary banks, in what sense is the latter information not relevant and the former relevant?

Mr. Brittan: I did not say that such information was not relevant. I said that I did not believe that it was relevant from the point of view of a public meeting. That is altogether different. The viewing public may be concerned to express their opinions about the type of programme on offer for a particular area, and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) mentioned scrutinising how a company is proposing to deal with industrial matters of moment. Those matters can properly be raised at a public meeting. However, examination of financial viability involves consideration of factors which, until the matter has been determined by the IBA, companies are entitled to have treated as confidential on the basis that they are commercially sensitive.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the Minister agree that it is also of great public interest that the Treasury benefits handsomely through the levy and corporation tax as a result of those contracts? If the public at a meeting show that they are interested

and want more information, surely they should be able to obtain it.

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Lady is suggesting that individuals or companies applying should be commercially viable. I agree that that is certainly in the public interest. However, I do not believe that the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North would solve any problems. The amendment would require only that contract applications be made public. If that was to happen, all that would result would be that relevant commercially sensitive information would not be included in the initial contract application. No useful purpose could be served by that.
If Opposition Members are arguing in favour of switching to a completely different procedure of public hearings, with legal representation, which I believe the hon. Member for Derby, North had in mind, that is a different argument altogether. That would be a completely different system. I do not believe that such a different system could be introduced simply on the basis of one amendment. I would therefore not commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is important to know the financial backers of the different companies. I shall give an example that may or may not arise again. The South African Government set up a department of information with funds running to millions of pounds through which they sought to purchase major newspapers in the United States. A lot of money was also devoted to buying magazines in this country with world-wide circulation. Had the names of the backers been published, we should have at least known where the backing was coming from. Many organisations may wish to subvert our democratic processes and put money into organisations in order to gain access to the media.

Mr. Brittan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I am not saying that such matters are irrelevant or should not be considered. The IBA will be considering them. The only question is whether it is information which in every possible respect should be made public. For example, it is not at all uncommon for people making such applications not to wish their identity to be known. The


reason is simple. They may be employed at that time by a competitor. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would lead to the present system and arrangements being put into a straitjacket and the changes being prevented from taking place. However, if one believes that people who are in the system and working for existing companies should be able, on a confidential basis, to put themselves forward as alternative contractors, one has to respect their wish for confidentiality.
There is a price to be paid for everything being brought into the open. The price to be paid here, while retaining the present system, would be two-fold. First, full details would not be included in the application, which would serve no useful purpose and cause complications in the later stages of the IBA's consideration of the application. Secondly, it would discourage those who are working in television but who do not wish it to be known that they are seeking to obtain the franchise from putting their names forward. I do not believe that either of those consequences would be in the public interest.

Mr. Freud: If I have followed the Minister correctly, he appears to have no objection to the application for a licence being published but feels that there must be reservations about the capital infrastructure of the company making an application. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that information by leak is just as accurate as information that is published. It happens only to be less desirable and more expensive.
However, even if we forget about the capitalisation or the identity of those involved, will the hon. Gentleman agree to the publication in some form, to save people from having to go to Brompton Road to look at it, of the application for a television or radio franchise? If a person goes to the IBA and says that he would like to do this, that or the other, and is given a franchise, the consumers of the consequent output have a right to know what was promised.

Mr. Brittan: The position of those who get the franchise is adequately covered by the new clause. The hon. Member for Derby, North is seeking information about people who have applied for the franchise and who may not necessarily

get it. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely, (Mr. Freud) appears to believe that he will be confining the hon. Gentleman's amendment if he relates it solely to the application. That is what the amendment seeks to do. The problem is that an application may contain information of a commercial or personnel character which those seeking to be considered can legitimately ask to be treated as confidential. There is nothing unusual in that. Matters of a general nature affecting the quality of service to be provided to the public should be made public, but financial details of a sort that require scrutiny, but not in public, should not be disclosed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are getting into difficult waters and my aim is to see whether we can resolve the problem. Surely there is no reason why applications should not be made more freely available throughout the country. I do not think that the IBA would object to that. We are not asking for that to be done in larger numbers, but someone could work out an arrangement by which the applications could be freely available to those who wish to consult them. We can take it as read that they would be available at the public meetings that we shall discuss under clause 23.
As to what should be taken out, I can see that it is right that, if there are those working for other companies who have got themselves involved in an applicant company—and that has happened—we should protect them. No doubt if their interests were made public it would cause them trouble in the companies from which they receive money at present.
I recall that when the contracts were published and the applicants had their pictures in the newspapers we discovered that there was a wide variety of people. One was General Tuzo, whom the Home Secretary and I know and for whom we have high respect. I do not think that anyone wants to know the size of the general's Army pension.

Mr. Freud: We can look up his pension in Whitaker's.

Mr. Rees: It is in Whitaker's. That is fine. If a company had on its board someone who was bringing money from Canada or other parts of the world, we ought to know the major aspects of that


arrangement, without going into personal details. In these days of managers and so on, the personal money of individuals is not what matters.
We could play games and vote on the amendment and be defeated, but I should like to get something out of the debate. May we have an assurance that t he IBA will ensure that the contracts are available? Can we be told, perhaps in another place, what aspects will not be published? We want to ensure that the major aspects are available for the public to see in all parts of the country.
If we would have those assurances, honour would be met. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is after. I saw little in his amendment at first, but the more that the matter is debated the more I see that he is making an important point.

Mr. Brittan: I know that the IBA will have followed closely what has been said and that it is anxious as anyone to ensure that all the information that can properly be made available is made available. However, the amendment would not achieve what is sought, because there is no obligation on anyone to put in the tender application the information that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) understandably seeks.
I am sure that the IBA will have taken heed of the debate. On behalf of the Government, I say that I have no objection to such information being made available, but I do not believe that the statutory route is the best way of achieving it.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in responding to the serious point that I made on amendment No. 88, but will he assure me that he will respond in correspondence within the next few days?

Mr. Brittan: I shall be happy to look into the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that they do not arise in this debate, but I shall look into the matter that he raised.

Mr. Whitehead: I do not wish to delay the House. I listened to the Minister's reply with mounting alarm. It seemed to me, not merely that he was suggesting

the withholding of certain details of applications, but that he was adducing a new principle, that applications were in a different category from completed contracts. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that the whole point about public examination is that meetings and public discussions of the applications should take place when the authority may still be influenced in its consideration of contracts.
The Minister said that financial details were sensitive and should not come within the process of disclosure. But that is where much of the public concern has arisen in the past. Companies have put themselves forward, particularly in radio, with predominant backing that is not from the locality, but from Canada or another transatlantic source or from the Rupert Murdoch group. It must be right for such details to be published and to be available when the application is made.
The Minister said that he hopes that the authority will take note of the debate. I hope so too, and I hope that in its new, more open, spirit of publication the IBA will make such information available in time for the public meetings so that there can be the most open possible public scrutiny of all applications.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

EDUCATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

'(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 10 of the main Act it shall be the responsibility of the Authority to appoint specific representatives of the appropriate organisation to the Educational Advisory Council.

(2) The Council shall establish a sub-committee with special responsibility for overseeing the educational programmes of the Fourth Channel as defined in section 3 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Gwilym Roberts.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert
'Without prejudice to so much of main section 2(2)(a) as relates to the dissemination of education, to ensure that not less than fifteen


per cent. of broadcasting time shall be programmes of an educational nature which shall include a substantial proportion of programmes to promote public understanding of world development and international interdependence and which shall be produced with financial resources and transmitted at broadcasting times no less favourable than other programmes'.

No. 12, in page 3, line 11 leave out 'a suitable proportion' and insert '20 per cent.'.

No. 13, in page 3, line 14 at end insert—
'(d) to ensure that a reasonable proportion of programmes are concerned with questions of world development'.

No. 52, in clause 7, page 7, line 18 at end insert—
'(aa) An account of the way in which the Authority have discharged their duty under section 3 (1) (b) as regards the dissemination of education, and in particular as regards the Authority's determination of what is a suitable proportion of the programmes that are of an educational nature and of what determines whether a programme is of an educational nature.'.

Mr. Roberts: The aim of the new clause and amendment No. 12, which is in my name, is to strengthen and formalise the existing tentative educational arrangements in clause 3. At a time when adult education in this country is under attack, there is every argument for having as strong and as formal an arrangement as possible to provide education wherever possible.
I appreciate that the IBA has given an indication of minimum hours for educationally validated programmes. On 12 September last year, the authority suggested that about 15 per cent. of programmes on the new channel should be educationally validated programmes. I hope that the Minister will support at least that figure or move towards the 20 per cent. that I have included in amendment No. 12 and will formalise the Government's support for such a share of educational programmes.
I am also concerned about the Educational Advisory Council and the more formal representation on it. Lady Plowden has made clear to me in correspondence that in its councils and sub-committees, the IBA is well provided for in terms of educationists. She said that it is her intention to have two educationists among the 11 members of the new board and she has suggested that there are about 60 education advisers in the whole IBA structure.
I do not suggest that education is under-provided, but there is a strong argument for some of the educational organisations, which have great experience in such matters, to be represented directly on the advisory council. Such representatives could make an enormous contribution in the validation of educational programmes and could ensure that the right types of programmes were provided to conform with the minimum hours provision.

6 pm

Mr. Whitehead: I should like to speak briefly to my amendment No. 11. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) is also hoping to intervene in the debate. I am sure that the House will await her remarks with interest, drawn from her much greater authority in these matters. The amendment has been moved largely as a probing amendment to discover the views of the Government and the views that they have, no doubt, ascertained from the authority, concerning educational programmes that deal with the subject of world development and international inter-dependence. All are concerned, in the light of our current relative economic failures and the desperate position in which the country finds itself, about a growing spirit of chauvinism, and a desire to look inward rather than outward and to ignore the major issues of the world.
A House of Commons that could give such an attentive hearing recently to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in the debate on the Brandt report, is a House of Commons, I hope, that will also consider that issues of this kind should be given a fair share of proper viewing time and not tucked away in the middle of the night on the fourth channel. That is the whole purpose of my amendment, supported by many organisations in education. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark has to say.

Dame Judith Hart: I should like to refer to amendment No. 13 which inserts in page 3, line 14, clause 3:
'(d) to ensure that a reasonable proportion of programmes are concerned with questions of world development'.
We shall be eager to hear the Government's response to this amendment. It is an issue that was only touched upon in


Committee. I was not a member of the Committee but I have read all the reperts of its proceedings. The matter was barely touched upon, but it is crucial. It is an amendment with the strongest backing, as I intend to indicate. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. It would follow naturally on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 3(1).
Clause 3(1)(c) is
to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes".
The amendment would add to that a further paragraph:
to ensure that a reasonable proportion of programmes are concerned with questions of world development.
That would not be to embark on any new principle of intervention in the Bill. It would merely extend the principle of the clause in a direction that we believe is of great importance. The Minister is not asked to accept any new principle but merely to take the existing principle a stage further.
I should like to indicate the backing that exists for the content and general thrust of the amendment. I wish sometimes that we had the privilege of Congress in Washington to be able to read matters into the record. Since that is not permitted, I fear that I must quote one or two items. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a letter was published in The Times in November last year—when the subject of the fourth channel was entering into wide areas of public discussion—from the Archbishop of Canterbury and others. I was one of the "others", as The Times describes them, together with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Richard Hoggart and Jack Jones.
The letter stated:
Much has already been said and written about the role of the new fourth television channel. Despite some scepticism, many people hope that it may provide an exciting and potentially enriching new service.
Among other things, the fourth channel should offer a real opportunity to focus attention on issues that the other channels can treat only briefly or irregularly. Not least among these is the relationship between the rich and poor countries.
The letter also stated:
The leading organisations in the field of development education in Britain have now written to the chairman of the Independent

Broadcasting Authority proposing that a significant amount of time on the fourth channel be allocated to programmes promoting an understanding of the interdependence of the developed and the developing world.
We believe that this imaginative proposal should be welcomed, and incorporated in the forthcoming drafts for legislation.
That is what this amendment, in essence, seeks to ensure.
It is not known at this stage whether the Government are likely to accept the amendment. I fear that I must, therefore, place on the record for the Advisory Committee on the Fourth Channel the names of those in the Fourth Channel Development Education Group who urge the approach I am advocating. I am sorry to bore the House, but it is necessary to read into Hansard the names of organisations that, surely, should impress the Minister and persuade him to accept the amendment. These are the members of the Fourth Channel Development Education Group who met representatives of the IBA in November last year to urge the point.
The membership in May this year was as follows: Action in Distress, Africa Centre, the Afro-Asian Caribbean Standing Committee on Merseyside, Broadcasters for Development, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the Centre for Multicultural Education, the Centre for World Development Education, Christian Aid, the Christian Education Movement, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, the Church Missionary Society, the Council for Education in World Citizenship, the Commonwealth Institute, the International Defence and Aid Fund, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Earthscan, the Overseas Development Institute, Oxfam, Population Concern, the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Runneymede Trust, Scottish Education and Action for Development, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Standing Conference on Education for International Understanding, the Sussex Development Education Group, the Trade Union Education and Research Unit, the Trade Union International Research and Education Group, the United Kingdom Committee of UNICEF, the United Kingdom Standing Conference for United Nations Second Development Decade, the United Reformed Church,


the United Society for Christian Literature, Voluntary Services Overseas, War on Want, the Workers' Educational Association and the World Development Movement.
It is important that the list of those associated with this request should appear clearly on the record. We await the Minister's response to the amendment. The delegation which met the IBA not only proposed that there should be written into the Act a statutory provision of the kind that I have moved but put forward the concept that it could advise on how such content might be incorporated and offered to organise the contribution to input that might be necessary.
That is the background to the amendment. It is moved on the heels of the Brandt debate last week and the Venice summit. Conventional thinking—I suspect that this is the conventional thinking throughout the media—might and, I think, does, assume that the subject of this amendment is very much concerned with a minority interest. The question that I put to the Minister and to those who will organise the distribution within the public service element of the fourth channel is "Is it a minority interest, or is it that one generation regards it as minority interest while, for the younger generation, it is a consuming interest"?
The present three channels do not offer enough. When Willy Brandt came to Britain to talk about the Brandt report, he went to Oxford. My understanding is that there was the largest meeting of students which has been held in Oxford since the 1930s. The examination schools there were crammed to overflowing. Apparently it was the biggest event at Oxford for two, three or four generations.
The Churches of all denominations regard our relationships with the developing world as at the centre, not only of their thinking, but of their activities. In my experience, young people around the country find this an area in which they feel a commitment and an involvement. So do old people. I had a touching letter from a constituent only yesterday. He is an old-age pensioner who lives in one of the most deprived areas of my constituency. He happened to have seen one of the rather rare programmes on the subject of famine in

East Africa, which was intensely moving and partly as a result of which there is now the appeal of the Save the Children Fund and other voluntary bodies which is raising so much money for children and mothers in East Africa. That old-age pensioner wrote in an unsteady hand and told me that he had watched the programme and that he was deeply concerned. He asked how he could help raise funds to send to East Africa and also what we in Parliament were doing about it.
I should like to touch on what people who are involved and engaged in this subject have the opportunity of seeing at present. The Minister will appreciate that, having had 10 years' experience of this issue, on one side of the House or the other, I have been able to consider and to contemplate what is offered on the present television channels. I suggest that we are offered occasional excellent reports on disasters and crises. They are excellent. They are highly evocative, good documentaries which arouse emotions, concern, interest and involvement. Then, usually late at night, or on what is popularly known as the "God spot", we have the occasional, naive, starting-from-scratch programmes about relationships between the industrialised world and the Third world. It is as if a Department which has a guilty conscience says "We must do something about the Third world", and a producer starts from scratch, rings a few of us up and we try to take him through from A to B to C on the whole content of what he is trying to do. Although he means well, it is not what we need.
There is remarkably little on regular news and current affairs programmes. Last night, I observed the way in which BBC news and "Panorama" reported the Venice summit, at which the whole issue of the Brandt report and North-South was absolutely crucial in the view of many of us. There was no mention of it on the news on BBC 1, and in "Panorama", which had a very full report of the Venice summit, we were treated in a brief second to a list of the four major points which were printed out on the television screen, one of which was "No summit on North-South". That was all that we saw on BBC 1 about the major element which was discussed at the Venice summit.
That is not good enough. We want the opportunity which the fourth channel offers to be used. We regard it as one of the real responsibilities of public service broadcasting. We therefore believe that that opportunity should be embodied in clause 3. If we want to encourage innovation and experiment, we have the right also to urge that a proportion of programmes should be devoted to the major issue of this century.
6.15 pm
I remind the Minister—I think that he will be responsible for it when it comes his way in September or October—that 18 or 19 months ago there was the UNESCO conference on the mass media. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not yet have received his brief on what is likely to occur at the UNESCO conference in October in Belgrade on the subject of the mass media. But what is clear is that it will be of the greatest importance for industrialised countries clearly to be able to indicate that they take extremely seriously their responsibilities to report what is happening in the Third world adequately and fairly. Although one cannot write into a Bill anything to do with fairness in the treatment of a subject, one can write into it—and we suggest that we should—the adequacy of time alloted to the subject.
If the Minister or his officials are able to go to that UNESCO conference which will deal with the McBride report on the mass media—which has aroused tremendous concern among our own media and journalists—and say "We have just written into our Bill a provision that the fourth channel shall allocate a reasonable proportion of programmes to the question of world development", it will stand them in extremely good stead. I counsel him accordingly.
We shall be most interested to hear what the attitude of the Government is to this amendment. I merely repeat that it has the most distinguished, solid and extensive backing. We shall regard it as unreasonable if the Minister is not able to give a reasonably positive response.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Before my hon. and learned Friend replies to the debate, perhaps I can sound a slight note of warning. The right hon. Member

for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) read out a list of immensely impressive and serious organisations that do marvellous work in many corners of the world. However, we in this House should be extremely careful about trying to establish directions based on our own inclinations, or the inclinations of such organisations as the right hon. Lady cited, about what broadcasting programme content should be.
The right hon. Lady referred to what "we" want, but I have a haunting fear that in these instances what we want is often not what people want. It is difficult enough for us in politics to identify what the real desires of people are in almost any area of policy. It is extremely difficult in broadcasting, which, of course, is an amalgam of information, transmittal and entertainment. It is difficult, because we need to get it more nearly right. At the end of the day the ability to switch off remains with the viewer, who, however, cannot switch off his reaction to the fact that he has to live with the effects of policies in other areas.
I advocate the provisions of clause 3, which specifically apply general quality guidelines for programmes on the fourth channel which will appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV and in which the authority is charged with encouraging innovation and experiment, as well as with specific areas of direction of programme content, rather than attempting to establish—as do the new clause and the amendment—a specific requirement as to programme content.
On Second Reading I raised the issue of the constitution of the new board. The make-up of the board will have a direct effect on the content of programmes. As I understand it, the board will be made up of professionals rather than representatives of shareholders, workers or regions. I raise again with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State the question whether the board should be representative of any interests—educational or any other kind. I ask whether, on the other hand, the board should not be made up of individuals who, because of their interests, occupations, and track records, are seen to be concerned for the creation of exceedingly good television of all kinds directed at minority and majority audiences.
I want to say a word about the direction of programmes to minorities. The essence of television as presently developed is that it is a broadcasting medium. It is not a "narrowcasting" medium. As it broadcasts it must strike at least a common denominator with a sufficiently wide audience to make it viable. I speak of programme viability and not economic viability, though in a commercially supported station the two elements are indivisible.
I fear that if the House follows the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Lanark we shall fall into the trap of requiring to be broadcast television programmes that would be fascinating to us in the House and to a small minority outside the House but would not be in the nature of broadcasting, or fulfilling the intention of the establishment of the fourth television channel.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I support new clause 4 and amendment No. 12, which lays down that instead of "a suitable proportion" of educational broadcasting the proportion should be 20 per cent.
The IBA expresses the hope that the fourth channel will serve fresh educational needs and use to the full new and exciting opportunities. The authority says that it attaches special importance to reaching individuals and not merely audiences, and that it recognises that this will require connections to be made between broadcasts and the means that exist outside broadcasting to follow up the interests created by programmes in relation to popular and specialist journals, home study, local groups and societies, volunteer services and classes in a variety of institutions.
The authority also says that it wishes to devote resources to establishing such connections and to making the new structure of educational broadcasting something wider and deeper than that which appears on the screen. I do not suppose that anyone in the House would disagree with the aims and objectives that the IBA there expresses.
Unfortunately, what does not appear, either in the proposals by the authority or in the provisions concerning the fourth channel in the Bill, is a means of ensuring that the hopes of the authority—which one respects and admires—will be adequately fulfilled. That is why I speak

in support of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) and his attempt to insist that a specific proportion of broadcasting on the fourth channel should be devoted to educational subjects.
My hon. Friend, when laying down the 20 per cent. proportion, might have gone on to specify that some of those programmes should be screened at peak times, otherwise we could too easily find, yet again, that educational programmes were relegated to those times when people were least likely to wish to view them. In saying that I no doubt arouse the opposition of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who, when referring to programmes about the Third world, suggested that we should beware of putting on television programmes which, in his view, the majority of people did not wish to watch. In speaking in that way he fell into his own trap in claiming, at least, to know what people do not wish to watch.

Mr. Rathbone: No, quite the opposite.

Dr. McDonald: I think that the hon. Gentleman failed to recognise that people can quickly become involved in a programme or a subject that they did not expect to engage their interest. An example is the recent programme about starvation in East Africa. A programme can suddenly make an impact on a wide range of people and cause them to think about problems that they had never previously considered.
Hence, it is important that at least some educational programmes should be transmitted at peak hours, and we should help the IBA to realise its ideal by encouraging it to lay down guidelines in that context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock suggested that representatives of various organisations should be involved in the work of the educational advisory council. That would seem to follow from what the IBA has said. If educational programmes are to have permanent value it is important to link the individual with other groups, societies and institutions in ways of following up the initial interest that a programme may have excited. It is therefore important that the right kind of people should be brought in to work with the educational advisory council.
If I make proposals about bodies that are interested, and that are representative of a wide range of people, it is because I believe that they illustrate the kind of body that my hon. Friend has in mind.
I have here a letter from the Workers' Educational Association, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart). In it the WEA stresses, first, that it is aware of the important contribution that broadcasting—particularly television—can make in the development of workers' education. The association already has considerable experience of television through the Open University and through its work with the BBC.
The WEA is also anxious to link in to the educational output of the fourth channel, but it stresses that such collaboration should not continue on the present pattern of occasional co-operative ventures and informal liaison. That is not what the WEA would want. If it were limited to that occasional co-operation there would be little that the WEA could do either to bring its experience to bear on the kind of programmes that are put forward for adult education or to involve the individual viewer in the way in which the IBA seems to want. The WEA therefore suggests that it should have a particular role to play and that the national extension college should have a special responsibility for the preparation of support publications. In that way, adult education in Britain might, through the use of television, become much more of a reality than it is now and, indeed, is likely to be in the future.
6.30 pm
I want to stress here the importance and value of television in both adult education and other types of education. For a number of years before I became a Member of Parliament I was involved in education at a variety of levels—in secondary education, adult education and university education. Where educational programmes are designed to inform and instruct and to prepare people for degree courses, and so on, the Open University has certainly shown the way. One hopes that the fourth channel will be able to reach that kind of level and be able to provide the kind of support and back-up, and the link with tutors, and so on, that the Open University has been able to provide.
For informal education the fourth channel will need to draw on the experience of both the WEA and youth organisations. I have received representations from the National Youth Council about the way in which the fourth channel should be used in order to educate the young. Once again, if youth organisations are used only in an ad hoc way, then, as the IBA recognises, the fourth channel will not be able to fulfil all of its potential.
The National Youth Council points out that only over the last three or four years has television begun to involve young people in the production of programmes and to consult them about the kind of material that they want to see on television and from which they would benefit. There have been isolated experiments. For example, Thames Television networked earlier this year "White Light", which featured issues concerning young people. It was viewed by young people in the studios and they were subsequently involved in television discussion. Other programmes dealt with the problem of youth unemployment. They helped young people to overcome apathy and indifference when on leaving school they found that no jobs were available. They helped them to direct their energies towards setting a job and in presenting themselves for interviews, and so on. Television has recently used youth organisations by first screening various social problems and then involving people, particularly the young in volunteer action groups.
So far, all this has been done only in an ad hoc way. What is needed now is to use something like the educational advisory council to involve youth organisations and to set up a proper structure for the use of the fourth channel to educate young people in the broadest sense and, particularly now, to help them to find a place in society both in terms of a job and in terms of involving themselves in society's attitudes and cultural traditions.
If the fourth channel is to have any value and if its educational content is to be a serious one, these are the procedures that must be used. So far, the Bill does not impose on the fourth channel a proper use and ensure that that use will be made of it. Too much is being left to the advertisers and others who wish to make money out of it.
Finally, the IBA talked about the need for innovation and experiment, particularly in educational programmes, although I think that this is quite a general point. Throughout the Bill the argument has been that little has been done to ensure that that innovation and experiment will take place on the fourth channel. Here we need to stress once more that more scope should be given to the independent producers, since it is from them that we can expect the kind of innovation and experiment, and the willingness to take risks, that may not be available if we use traditional sources of programming.
There is no point in leaving educational programmes and programmes concerned with the Third world to the chance of "a suitable proportion". There should be a proportion of 20 per cent. It should be a proportion that involves the use of peak time for some of these programmes. There should be ways of ensuring that the fourth channel will involve the organisations outside television that have a contribution to make and that can take up and involve the individual's interest, which has been developed through television, and will properly ensure that innovation and experiment take place by giving a greater opportunity than the Bill now proposes to the independent producers.

Mr. Freud: I rise in support of amendment No. 13, standing in my name and the names of the right hon. Members for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).
I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I think that the Minister and I, for once, perhaps, will agree on something almost unreservedly, in that I believe that it is difficult to legislate specifically in a case such as this. I think that it would be wrong for the House to lend its name to a charter for a new television programme in which we specify too closely how that new programme should be made up. I am not at all sure that
a reasonable proportion of programmes
has any real meaning. "Reasonable" means different things in different people's minds.
I believe that the House would be much better served in hearing from the Minister that he has some sympathy towards our amendment, and that as well as saving that the new service will have innovation and experiment it is expected to have re

sponsibility and to show concern. I hope that the Minister will come towards us—not, perhaps, in instantly giving you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a manuscript amendment saying that such-and-such a percentage will be devoted to programmes, such as is asked for in our amendment, but in giving a broad consent to the concept of the amendment.
I am sure that the Minister and the whole House will know of the enormous power of television, and of people who had no serious intention of watching being seduced by a message, such as the message of the famine in East Africa and the many different messages that have come via television to an apathetic audience that, having thought about the message, decided that something must be done.
I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House will have met constituents—as I have met constituents—who have said "Why should we help the Third world when things are so bad in England?" We depend on television channels to show us that, compared with the Third world, things are really rather good in England, however bad they may appear.
It is for that reason that I hope the Minister will support us. I know that what we say in the House will be listened to and read with care by the IBA. All that we can ask for is not so much a reasonable proportion of programmes going in one direction as consent on both sides of the House that on the new television channel there shall be responsibility and concern about the suffering and the plight of those worse off than ourselves.
I do not believe that the opportunity to motivate a new service comes to the House very often. In 1967 we thought that we were giving a 10-year charter, but it has gone on for 13 or 14 years. This is the time to declare our intention. I hope that the declaration will come from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was right to warn us about the dangers of legislating on the subject of television programmes. However, he misunderstood the purpose of the amendments when he spoke about legislating on programme content. If we were legislating on programme content I should not be in any parliamentary


lobby that sought to direct television companies on the content of particular programmes. The amendments seek to draw to the attention of the authority and to whatever new company should be involved a range of topics that they should deal with responsibly and in an educational manner.
In these days it may be trite to say that all the peoples of this world are interdependent, but few people in this country are aware that the constantly expressed demands for a higher standard of living and greater wealth for each individual in Britain or the Western world cannot be met forever. Indeed, nowadays the demands that we make on the facilities and riches of the world can be met only at the expense of people who are much worse off than ourselves.
It is essential for us to give some direction in relation to a range of topicalities. Whether any hon. Member likes it or not, conscious decisions are made about the kinds of television programmes that are projected on the screen. The average viewer has no control over the programmes, their content, or how they are projected. Those decisions are consciously made. The ways in which the programmes are made effectively determine the way in which people look upon events in the world outside Britain.
What strikes me about television today, especially the news coverage, is the absolute bias that appears in it from time to time. I give one or two examples of what arises in news programmes and why it is essential to have as broad a range as possible of educational programmes dealing with the Third world.
Many people in this country have come to the conclusion that the reason why we are suffering from economic difficulties is that the greedy Arabs are putting up their oil prices, but any rational examination of the reasons behind the oil price increase would take into account, for example, what happened to the oil-producing countries in the days when they had no economic power.
I give one other example. At the time of the Lancaster House discussions on Rhodesia, when there was an agreement, one ITN news bulletin purported to give the views of the man in the street in

Salisbury. The reporter interviewed about a dozen men. By some curious chance, in a country where the whites are outnumbered, every person whose view was asked was white. That had an effect on the way in which people considered matters.
Looking at news bulletins from day to day, we find that the people who quite rightly resist the Russians in Afghanistan are variously described as "freedom fighters" or "resisters against oppression", but in news bulletins about events in South Africa, people are described as "terrorists". Essentially, both groups of people are doing precisely the same thing—they are trying to free themselves from oppressors. In Afghanistan they are trying to free themselves from a wholly external oppressor while in South Africa they are dealing with an internal oppressor.
6.45 pm
I may be wrong; perhaps I am giving the people who deal with the news media too much benefit of the doubt. I am not sure whether they take a conscious decision on how far they may affect people's attitudes and values about the world at large. I hope that I am not doing them an injustice. I hope that they are not setting out consciously to describe people in certain ways. If that is what they are doing, it is thoroughly bad.
That is why I come back to the point that I made at the beginning, in relation to programme content. There should not be directions by a political body to determine how matters should be presented. Certainly, the news should be presented as objectively and neutrally as possible, free of political content. That rarely happens.
There have been some excellent documentaries, some of which I agreed with and some of which I violently disagreed with. They set out to examine problems in the Third world and to present them to the public. I hope that there will be balanced educational programmes, which widen the perspective of people's lives.
I should like to ask one question which may or may not be related to the new clause. I may get the question in before I am called to order. How far, in the provision that deals with imaginative content, is there an intention to encourage the contractor for the fourth channel, or, indeed, the present contractors, to have


more access-television and to give more air time to people who want to make a programme and put over a specific message? There is nothing wrong in allowing people to express their views on television as well as in the public parks.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. They are important. As time goes on, the pressure to make money will reduce the standard of service that we receive. It is difficult for anyone to say what kind of programme should be seen on television. In the major battle that arises from time to time about the ratings the tendency is always to go for the lowest common denominator instead of the highest common factor.
I hope that the fourth channel will have a much broader perspective and will provide a much better service than anything we have received so far. I hope that the amendments—if accepted, as they should be—will go sonic way towards providing a sense of responsibility within one of the most important media in the country today.

Mr. William Hamilton: I shall not detain the House for long. I approach these matters with a good degree of cynicism.
As in many other instances, and especially when a clause is couched in such general terms as this one, there is a great temptation for individual Members to parade their own prejudices. They lay themselves open to the charge that they are seeking to inflict their prejudices on the mass of the viewing public.
Clause 3, as drafted, would be amusing if it were not so serious. Television is an extremely powerful medium. For us to legislate in such meaningless terms as those contained in clause 3 naturally leads the Opposition to seek to be more specific.
Clause 3(1) says:
it shall be the duty of the Authority—(a) to ensure that the programmes contain"—
this is the phrase that has been paraded around in the last half hour—
a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV.
I wonder whether the Minister will tell us specifically what tastes and interests are not now generally catered for by television which will be covered by the new channel.
Clause 3(1)(b) says that the Authority must ensure that
a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature.
That begs the question. All kinds of so-called educational programmes would not be so defined, for instance, by Mrs. Mary Whitehouse and a whole lot of other people of that kidney.
Is page 3 of The Sun defined as "educational"? If a series of photographic reproductions of page 3 of The Sun are screened for half an hour, in the belief that this is what the Prime Minister approves of because she knighted the fellow who produces those things, is that an educational programme?

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am certain that a detailed study of that photograph, especially a semiotic study, would reveal the inherent sexism of the British media.

Mr. Hamilton: I am emphasising the vague generality of the phraseology in the clause. Paragraph (c) states:
to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes, and generally to give the Fourth Channel Service a distinctive character of its own.
Those interested in the fourth channel are interested in one thing only—making money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) does not have a hope in hell of the amendment being accepted. We are trying to write into the Bill a provision to ensure that the contractors shall engage 15 per cent. of their programmes on world development. That in itself is a vague term which could mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people. My right hon. Friend knows what she wants, and I know what she wants. If we got what we wanted, it would not appeal to the majority of viewers.
I receive letters, even from Labour supporters, complaining about the aid that is given by the Government to under-developed countries, on the basis that charity begins at home. If the contractors find that the programmes are not popular, although they might be educationally good—they will be taken off because they do not make the cash for those running the show. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that matters should be left as they are, namely, that


control should be left to the good judgment of the IBA. Presumably, the IBA will read and digest what has been said in the debate. It knows that a fair representation of hon. Members want a larger educational content—the sort of programmes that have been mentioned by Labour Members. I am surprised that we have not tabled more amendments, although some may have been tabled in Committee. I am sorely tempted to say that we should give 15 per cent. to youth programmes and 15 per cent. to the unemployed—which is a growth industry under the present Government. There could be programmes on the use of leisure time for the unemployed. There is an infinite variety of ways in which we could lay down the content of programmes.
On balance, I accept the advice of the hon. Member for Lewes that it is better to leave the matter in the general propositions contained in clause 3, hoping that the IBA will take full account of what has been said in the debate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to speak briefly about the points of the amendments that deal with educational broadcasting Amendment No. 52, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), is grouped with new clause 4, which was moved by my hon, Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts). I hope that the Government will feel able to accept amendment No. 52, which is modest. If the Government accept the amendment it will go some way towards allaying some of the fears felt by those involved in educational broadcasting—especially those who work in the Open University—about the future of educational broadcasting when the fourth channel is under way.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. Two of the principles that we have written into the amendment are taken from the Bill as it stands, and as it was written by the Government. First, there should be educational broadcasting on the fourth channel—a principle that is generally accepted by the IBA and by the Government, and that is written into the Bill in clause 3(1)(b). Secondly, there should be a degree of accountability, and that is written into the Bill

in clause 7. It is important that those two principles should be linked and that there should be a degree of accountability on educational broadcasting. The amendment tries to ensure that there is some responsibility in that respect and some attempt to define the meaning of educational broadcasting, which is lacking in the Bill as it stands.
We wish to ensure that the phrase
a suitable proportion of programmes are of an educational nature
is more clearly defined—if not now, at least once the fourth channel is established by those who have responsibility for its operation. As the Bill stands, references to the educational content of programmes or to educational broadcasting are pretty meaningless. They are no more than a token acknowledgement that there should be educational broadcasting on the fourth channel.
I mentioned the Open University because those who work with it or who are connected with it are concerned with the development of educational broadcasting. This afternoon many hon. Members—and even more hon. Members during previous stages of the Bill—declared their interest. I do not have any interest in the Bill as it stands, but I have a past interest, in that, for a time, I worked for the Open University. I was keenly aware of the significant role that television played for students studying for an Open university degree. Anyone who knows anything about the amount of effort that they commit to their work must be impressed by their motivation and dedication.
The problem for those students is not only the amount of time that their work takes but the hours when they have to study. At present, anyone studying for an Open University degree has to work very anti-social hours because of the times at which educational broadcasts are available on television. Anyone looking at today's papers to see the television programme timetable would find that students had to be in front of their television sets at 6.40 am to view some of the programmes that are necessary to help them with their course work.
That is not a satisfactory position. Many of those involved with the Open University are worried that the position may deteriorate further. There is no


guarantee that the fourth channel will either allow sufficient time for educational broadcasts or allow time at the right part of the day for such broadcasts to be useful. Many are worried that the BBC, feeling that it must compete with Independent Television programmes, may put even more pressure on the Open University to come off BBC 2 in the early evening and broadcast its programmes at even more unsocial hours than at present. That is a cause of genuine concern.
7 pm
It is obvious that the time at which most adults are free to study or to pursue any special interest is probably going to be the same time as that at which mass audiences are available to watch popular programmes. Someone in the authority will have to make a basic decision to resist the pressures to seek mass audiences. So far the IBA has been reluctant to guarantee regular transmission times or the continuation of transmission times, or even to guarantee adequate repeat facilities, all of which are necessary if coherent planning of any type of educational programme is to go ahead.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I am interested in what the hon. Lady says about that aspect, but does she admit that many students of the Open University are mothers and fathers, and that the one difficulty that they would have at peak times would be to persuade their children to turn over to the Open University lessons when they wanted to watch someting more entertaining?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that most Open University students would prefer to tackle that problem than to stay up until 12.30 at night to watch educational programmes or to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning to begin their studies. I think that they could more easily cope with that kind of situation than the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
This problem is causing a great deal of concern for the Open University. What will happen to educational broadcasting when the new channel is established? Will the Open University get a fair deal from the new channel? If it will, on what basis will it be? If not, will the Minister use his powers under section 21 of the 1973 Act to make it more

likely that suitable time will be provided for Open university broadcasting in future? I realise that the Minister has been asked about this matter in the past, and I think that he has had representations from the Open University about it. However, it is a problem that is causing great concern. The Minister should be in a position to give some assurances to the House this evening.
We have not been too specific in the amendment. We have not embarked on too many tight definitions of "educational broadcasting" or of "suitable times". I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there are some shortcomings in the Bill and will accept that there should be a greater degree of accountability in educational broadcasting.
It is essential that further safeguards should be introduced into the Bill so that commercial broadcasting can provide an effective educational service for adults. If the Minister intends to display his concern and interest in this matter, he will accept that the amendment is a reasonable step in the direction of ensuring that educational needs are met. The Government have only to decide whether they are interested in an attempt to safeguard educational programmes. If they are, the amendment should be acceptable to them. If they refuse to accept the amendment, many people will be concerned about the Government's attitude to educational broadcasting in future.

Mr. Brittan: Discussions between the IBA and the Open University are taking place. I am not able to report the outcome of those discussions because they have not been concluded.
The Government agree with the essential aims of amendment No. 52, which would require an obligation to be placed on the IBA to give in its annual report a description of programmes of an educational nature on ITV and the fourth channel and to describe
the Authority's determination of what is a suitable proportion of the programmes that are of an educational nature and of what determines whether a programme is of an educational nature.
I support the idea that the IBA should be accountable in the sense of its being required to describe in some detail the provision that it has made for educational programmes.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) is right if what she is saying is that one way of ensuring that what is—we would say necessarily—a fairly general obligation is adhered to is if at the end of a specific, limited and regular period the body upon which that necessarily general obligation is placed has to give an account to Parliament and the country of how it has discharged that obligation. That seems to be an appropriate way of ensuring the adequate discharge of a duty which, by its very nature, has to be cast in general terms. Therefore, I do not disagree with the general aim that the hon. Lady put before the House.
The only reason why I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment is that that general aim is met by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Clause 7(2) deals with the report that the authority has to provide and stipulates—
The report shall include …

(a) a general description of the programmes broadcast in ITV and the Fourth Channel Service respectively, with particular reference to programmes containing news or news features and programmes of an educational nature, and a general account of how the programmes broadcast in the Fourth Channel Service differed from those broadcast in ITV, with particular reference as aforesaid"

That means that the report must give an account of what the IBA has done to discharge its obligations under the Bill to ensure that there is a suitable proportion of programmes of an educational nature. I do not believe that the further provisions in the amendment take the matter much further in a helpful way. Obviously that account, which will be included in the report as a result of the provisions in the Bill, will be descriptive and will therefore be a helpful document. But to say in that report
what determines whether a programme is of an educational nature
does not seem to take the matter much further.
If we are not trying to be controversial or polemical, we all know that there are difficulties for anyone, whether broadcasters or educationists, in deciding what is or is not "of an educational nature". Leaving aside the references that were made to page 3 of The Sun and whether that is educational, even matters that generally would be regarded as being of a valuable and life-enhancing kind—

whether they are to be regarded as educational on the basis that they add to one's breadth of understanding of the world or have a content relating to some particular course—are difficult. It would be better for the authority to give an account of what it has done, and then for the public and Parliament to decide whether they are satisfied with the discharge of responsibilities given in that account.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I assume from what the Minister has said that, if he thought that the account was not satisfactory, he, as Minister, would be willing to use his powers under the 1973 Act on programme content and the timing of programmes?

Mr. Brittan: If ever there was a hypothetical question, that was it. I do not propose to envisage a situation in which a report has been issued with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not satisfied, and to say how and in what way he would exercise powers vested in him to deal with a situation revealed by a non-existent deficiency and a nonexistent report. I do not think that that would be very helpful. I have accepted the principle, and it should indicate the nature of the concern of the Government that we have specifically included this matter in the Bill to ensure that the educational obligation is taken seriously.
I turn now to the other more general matters about the content of the programmes that will appear on the fourth channel that were raised particularly by the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart). The debate has been valuable, and I hope it will be accepted that I do not say that in any empty sense or with a desire to apply compliments, let alone flattery. I genuinely believe that the programmes that appear on the fourth channel will be determined by a number of inputs. We are talking about a service in its incipient stages. I have no doubt that one of the factors that will play an important part in what appears will be what is said in this House and the degree of interest that is shown by hon. Members on these matters. Therefore, the points that were made by the right hon. Lady about the extreme importance of matters relating to the Third world, and the degree of interest in those matters will be heeded by the IBA and by those responsible for running the fourth channel. The


fact that she was able to pray in aid a large number of individuals and organisations in support of her interest and concern will not go unnoticed.
The anecdote that the right hon. Lady related to the House of the visit to Oxford by Herr Brandt must be of significance to those concerned with the making of programmes. If she is saying that this is an important subject, the handling of the matter by the House last week shows a general acceptance of that fact. If she goes on to say that an important subject of that sort should be dealt with extensively in a responsible and mature way on television, I doubt whether she would find any dissent. If she tells us that that subject invokes a particular response from young people, that, too, would accord with our common experience and with the experience of those who talk to younger sections of the community. If, in addition, she is conveying the message that a fourth channel that seeks to encourage innovation and experiment in the form of and content of its programmes should heed the interests of the young, then, too, I suspect that she would be giving a message which would be well received and well heeded.
7.15 pm
I hope that I can give a measure of support to the spirit of what the right hon. Lady said, and to what was said on education. I differ from the right hon. Lady on the question of whether it is appropriate for the House to give directions to the IBA in a legislative form—beyond what is contained in the Bill—as to the content of the programmes to be put out on the fourth channel. I differ from the right hon. Lady because it is important to bear in mind the general structure of what we are providing and what we are seeking to ask the IBA to provide. The right hon. Lady was not present throughout the discussion on that point in Committee. She says that she has read the reports of the Committee proceedings, and I accept that. But she will realise that in making this point it is not merely an attempt to excuse the Government's reluctance to accept this amendment, but rather a reflection of the general philosophy that applies to world development, education, or whatever.
We are seeking to provide in legislation a general outline, guide and direction to the IBA as to the character of

the programmes that we wish to see on the fourth channel, and as to the sources from which those programmes should be derived. We are not seeking to tie the IBA in a straitjacket, and any attempt to impose quotas or percentages, however well-intentioned or well-meant, is sure to have that effect. A quota becomes a norm, and that is an undesirable principle to apply in broadcasting.
Therefore, we have resorted to general phrases about the suitable proportions, upon which it is easy to cast scorn, but which provide a sounder basis for the development of a project from scratch. Just as we do not wish to impose quotas, we would be unwise to prescribe the subject matter. To do that is not the same as to dictate the content of particular programmes, but there are many worthy contenders for special reference, and there are many subjects which everyone would agree should be dealt with on television. It is not appropriate for us to produce a list. There is no specific requirement that there should be a suitable proportion of religious programmes on the fourth channel, but no one doubts that that is a subject matter of supreme importance to millions of people.
In rejecting the concept that there should be a requirement that these schemes be particular quotas or subject matter, we are doing nothing, and we do not seek to do anything, to discourage the IBA in its conduct of the programmes from including among them a responsible treatment of these matters. We are doing quite the reverse.
The right hon. Lady says that education has already been mentioned. That is true, but education and matters of an educational nature are, for the reasons that I mentioned, different. We are not talking about a subject matter. Education can cover almost any subject. We are talking about a treatment, an aim and a function. That is different from a particular subject.
I hope that I have responded in a positive sense to the aims, purposes and aspirations of right hon. and hon. Members about what should go out on the fourth channel. I hope that the House believes that the right way is to make its views heard but not to impose their aims in legislation.

Dame Judith Hart: I am glad that the Minister has said that both sides of the House and the Government agree with the principle and intent of the new clause. In those circumstances I am sure that those responsible for the fourth channel will be bound to pay full heed to the House's view.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF DURATION OF INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY'S FUNC TION.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out '1966' and insert '1992'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may discuss amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 5, leave out '2001' and insert '1997'.

Dr. Summerskill: Part I of the Bill involves the extension of the duration of the IBA's function. The Bill proposes to extend it for another 15 years. Our amendment proposes that it should be extended to 1992—another 11 years. Our proposal for 10 years was rejected in Committee. The Bill also proposes that the duration of function can be further extended for another five years.
I remind the Secretary of State of his observation on the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. On the recommendation that there should be no arbitrary limit to the IBA's existence he said:
The Government considers that it is appropriate to review the structure of broadcasting in the United Kingdom from time to time in order to ensure that it is both flexible and responsive to the nation's needs and that it is appropriate, for this reason, to have some time limit, though an adequate one, on the live; of broadcasting authorities.
We agree with that observation. We differ only about the length of the time limit.
We submit that 15 years is too long a life to give the IBA without the theoretical possibility of Parliament truncating its existence. We must ensure that it is, as the Home Secretary said,
responsive to the nation's needs.
When the House is considering the length of life or duration of function of

the IBA or the BBC it must take into account not only the existing functions and powers but the major developments which can and will take place and which will change and expand the functions and powers. We must bear in mind that the IBA's function will continue to be the supremely influential and responsible one of providing television and local sound broadcasting services.
We are adding to that the new function of providing an innovative fourth channel. That can alter, for better or for worse, the future shape of British television and make the next 11 years far more significant in the life of the IBA than the last 11. Even hon. Members who have no adverse criticism of the way in which the IBA has functioned in the last 25 years must admit that it is about to enter uncharted seas with the fourth channel. Nobody can predict the outcome.
This is not the time for Parliament to extend the IBA's life for another 15 years. The uncertainties of the fourth channel are made more profound by the extreme vagueness and permissiveness of the Bill. Most of our attempts in 12 sittings of the Committee to introduce more specific guidelines for the IBA in its relationship with a subsidiary were frustrated by the Minister. That applies particularly to the all-important powers of the subsidiary which we are not even discussing today.
The Bill is more significant for what it leaves out than for what it includes. In the exercise of its powers over the IBA Parliament must strike the right balance between control and freedom. That balance is not struck in the Bill. It would be complacent for the House to decide to allow the IBA to run for 15 years. That suggests a lack of real concern.
In a lecture to the Royal Society of Arts last month Sir Brian Young, the director-general of the IBA predicted that by the end of the century the number of channels available will be such that viewers will be making their own choices from a multitude of sources from Britain and abroad. Sir Brian made it clear that the whole infrastructure of our broadcasting services will have to be kept closely under review well before the year 2001 mentioned in the Bill.
One of the major functions of the IBA is to ensure that the Exchequer receives,


through the levy, hundreds of millions of pounds from the operations of independent television. What will be the effect of increasingly competitive television on the finances of the IBA, not to mention the BBC, which is already facing a crisis? Perhaps the method of funding the public broadcasting services will have to be reviewed and altered. However much we welcome the appointments of Lord Thomson and Mr. Edmund Dell, however much we trust the members of the IBA, we must recognise that they might not be there for 15 years and their successors might not be so welcome to the House.
The future of broadcasting and of the IBA's role is full of uncertainties and new developments. Parliament must be vigilant in ensuring that a high standard of television programmes is maintained. We cannot assume that that will be so for the next 15 years.
In Committee the Minister gave practical and administrative reasons for the Government's decision to give the IBA 15 years' life. They related to work that the IBA is doing and to the programme contracting arrangements. We are told that companies with which the IBA enters into contract for the provision of programmes need the assurance of a reasonably long-term contract. It is said that it would be possible to award two successive eight and seven-year contracts during its life. Our amendment also allows for two successive contracts, but of different lengths. We recognise the feelings that arise from uncertainty and insecurity about the future of the IBA and the contracts. After all, hon. Members have contracts which last for only five years. We regard the parliamentary accountability of the IBA as an equally, if not more important, factor than the length of contract. If the Minister gives examples of difficulties I am sure that the wit of the Home Office is sufficient to evolve a method or special arrangement to solve the problems, even if that involves minor legislation.
Parliamentary accountability by limiting the life of the IBA has no substitute as a method of reviewing the structure of broadcasting in general and the IBA in particular, as the Home Secretary recognised in the observation which I quoted. As the IBA plays such an important and influential role in our lives, it should

at least come under parliamentary scrutiny every 11 years, if 10 years is impossible. That must be good for broadcasting standards. To maintain those standards, we need the sanction of a shorter life span. No previous Bill has given commercial broadcasting a span of life that is as long as 15 years.

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend has made frequent mention of the difficulties of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the IBA. A piece of machinery has effectively scrutinised the IBA and other nationalised industries day by day for about 25 years. That machinery was in the hands of this august assembly until it was put to a relatively painless death about 12 months ago. At that time the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which I had the honour to be chairman for five years, was done away with—to use an unparliamentary expression—at the will of the House. It literally makes me slightly sick that my hon. Friend, despite her delightful personality, is being forced to repeat the lament that the House cannot scrutinise the great nationalised industries, including the IBA. I hope that the House will soon sober up in its attitude towards this important matter.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is suffering from nausea as a result of my remarks. The very Select Committee to which he referred recommended that there should not be an arbitrary limit to the IBA's existence. The Home Secretary and I agree that that recommendation is correct if, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are to ensure that the structure of broadcasting is both flexible and responsive to the nation's need. We disagree only about the length of its life.
There is no substitute for parliamentary scrutiny. Under the Bill, the life of the IBA will extend into the life of the next Parliament but one. The next Parliament will not be able to make the IBA accountable to it. In his Cambridge speech last September, the Home Secretary said:
The Authorities are themselves accountable to Parliament for their decisions, and the services they provide, and Parliament itself is accountable to the electorate.
This is the system we must maintain as a basis, for television in a free society."'


I am sure that the House agrees with that. The Bill's proposal for the years 1996 and 2001 reminds me of the famous comedy, in which it was discovered that the leading character had been deposited by his parents in a handbag at the left luggage office at Victoria station. That is what we appear to be doing with the IBA. We seem to be putting it into a parliamentary left luggage office for 15 years. If we do so, we shall be careless, to say the least. In broadcasting policy there is for this House, an importance in being earnest.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has just given an admirable impersonation of Lady Bracknell. The amendment is a minor adaptation of an amendment that was contested in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has already referred to the argument that was used. It was argued that there was always a comparative lack of parliamentary scrutiny. He was correct to say that as a result of the abolition of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—a decision with which I concurred—it was less likely that there would be any scrutiny by a Select Committee. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which, inevitably, covers a wide area. It is unlikely that an exhaustive study of the IBA will take place twice in a decade, as happened under the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. There is too much pressure on the Home Affairs Committee to consider other subjects. We are considering what may occur if the life of the IBA is extended for not a decade—as has been the case since the original Act of 1954—but beyond the lifetime of two complete Parliaments.
Certain questions arise in the minds of most observers of the authority when they consider its recent performance. How has the authority handled existing contractors? What patterns of ownership has the authority allowed to build up? What forces for innovation and change is it introducing into the system? How will those forces of innovation be manifested in the new fourth channel? Those questions give rise to concern.
The questions that I have posed seem to argue in favour of parliamentary

scrutiny and accountability at briefer intervals than are provided in the Bill. The authority's life is now coming to an end. Its lifetime has already been extended on several occasions by the ministerial fiat of both parties. We are therefore entitled to consider some aspects of the authority's control and accountability.
There has been a good deal of criticism about the degree to which existing television and radio contractors have been allowed to operate. It would appear that the normal provisions for the collection of levy, secondary rental and so on have often been set aside. The only recent example of parliamentary scrutiny is that of the Public Accounts Committee. It recently discovered from the IBA that the authority had allowed two companies—and then more—to reclaim payments of levy against the installation of capital equipment. They were allowed to do that from 1976, and the arrangements were backdated to 1974. As a result, the Exchequer lost millions of pounds. That issue was referred to in Committee and should be of concern to the House.
This month, an article appeared in the New Statesman, entitled "Pop Profit and the IBA". It suggested that as regards the lucrative, larger commercial radio contracts, much of the money from the secondary rental that should have gone to the authority and subsequently to the Exchequer, did not do so. Loose and tenuous arrangements were being made for refunding secondary rental to companies that made programmes of merit. I am talking, not about companies that are struggling on the breadline, but about those that are getting a good rate of return. Those companies look forward to a secure investment for some years ahead. Such companies can reclaim money whenever they make a serious programme.
The article suggests that if one looks at the accounts of the 19 radio contractors for the last complete financial year one will see that they have no uniform way of dealing with secondary rental, and do not show whether that rental has been paid. These matters may be very tedious and may not be a matter for lively debate in Parliament, but they are the essence of the scrutiny which we in Parliament should apply to the authority. I do not think that the Public Accounts Committee, although it turned up some interesting facts a few months ago, is an


adequate and sufficient vehicle for the kind of examination that we should carry out.
I wish to look briefly at the extension of ownership within the system. The difficulty of producing the necessary and healthy process of change seems inevitably to be intensified the longer the Independent broadcasting system continues in existence. The larger companies, by the very nature of the fact that they have been in existence for so long, that they represent such immense assets and such powerful vested interests in terms of both trade unions and management, are unlikely to be unseated in the perennial round franchise applications. Those large companies are expanding more and more in terms of their patterns of cross-ownership in a way which this House should examine at least once a decade. I do not believe that there is a sufficient process of examination implicit in the procedure for allocation and re-allocation of contracts.
When we come to a later amendment in my name, we shall see that, contrary to some of the undertakings that I thought had been given in Standing Committee, the procedure for allocation, re-allocation and re-advertisement of contracts in radio at least—when we come to the statutory period for such an exhaustive re-examination after eight years—are unclear and likely to lead to powerful existing contractors being reappointed. If that is the case, we should be particularly concerned with the expansion of oligopolistic ownership through the system.
The other week I was looking at the magazine Broadcast in which I saw a reference to a former employee of the IBA who is now the managing director for Standard Broadcasting—Mr. Robert Kennedy. Mr. Robert Kennedy, according to this article, now has interests in 12 independent local radio stations—Capital, Metro, Pennine, Plymouth, City, Trent, Swansea, Devonair, Severn Sound, North of Scotland Radio, West Yorkshire Broadcasting and Centre Radio. The latter is the new radio station in Leicester. When an organisation which is supposed to be dealing with local radio has holdings, as Mr. Kennedy's company has, of nearly 25 per cent. in the largest of all radio stations, Capital Radio, is not that kind of extension of influence something

that we should scrutinise? I do not think that the process of scrutiny can just be left to the authority. Every now and then it must come back to Parliament which must be in a position to ask whether the situation is right. We must ask whether this makes for the kind of local broadcasting that we want. I do not believe that the 15-year period, or longer, will give us anything like the degree of accountability to Parliament that we want.
7.45 pm
My last point concerns the fourth channel. We see in the press that our former colleague Edmund Dell, running in tandem with the deupty chairman of Capital Radio, Sir Richard Attenborough, will run the fourth channel. We also read that four people have already been appointed their—appointment has not been announced, but they come from the ranks of the ITCA—to the fourth channel board. The appointees include three managing directors from the companies. At a later stage I hope to refer to this at greater length. The power of innovation which will be open to the new fourth channel service means that there is already reason to keep a beady eye on the IBA to ensure that there should be a novel and original element within that service.
For all of those reasons, I believe that the period set out in my hon. Friend's amendment is the correct maximum before which the authority should come back for the full scrutiny of Parliament, and at that point Parliament must decide whether there should be a further extension of its life. When we consider the area into which we are now moving—the immense extension of Teletext, off-air recording and matters of this kind, all of which are charges directly or indirectly on the authority with all its responsibilities in television and radio—we can see that after 10 or 11 years the world will be so different that that will be the moment for Parliament to have a further accounting with the authority.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is not usual to have two Front Bench speakers, but I thought that we might save a lot of time if I raised my question about the levy now. I am also tempted to go into the question of accountability, which we have not yet got right. In a theoretical


sense the IBA is accountable to Parliament, but in a practical sense it is not, and that is mainly because of our procedures.
I raise the question of the television levy because it did not loom at all in our discussions in Committee. We dealt with the levy and the rental for local broadcasting, but we did not get involved in it, and when I attempted to put down amendments to the Bill they were ruled out of order, for perfectly proper reasons.
The House is agreeing to giving the IBA authority over the channels for a long time, and I think that we should hear from the Home Secretary how he views the question of the levy. Certainly when I was Home Secretary I was under pressure to increase the levy. Discussions on the subject had not concluded when the last Government left office rather quickly. The question of the levy looms large because ultimately it is a matter of taxation. It may be argued that no public expenditure is involved in the way in which the Government are dealing with the fourth channel as opposed to the way in which we intended to deal with it, but in practice it means that less money is leviable, so in a sense it is public expenditure in reverse.
I wish to refer to the fifth report of the Public Accounts Committee, which reported in February of this year. Since 1974 the levy was placed on profits rather than revenue, and the IBA had the statutory responsibility of determining the leviable profits, as opposed to the levy. The fifth report of the PAC said, in paragraph 6:
Given that substantial public revenue is involved, our examination convinces us that the Government should have the final right to prescribe how the statutory requirements should be administered".
I wonder what the Government view of that will be.
What is the situation now? In 1976 the IBA ruled that for levy purposes depreciation should be in public accounts as a whole. Will this continue? Bearing in mind that a new licence period is just beginning, would it not be more equitable if the capital base of the new contractors at the beginning of the new licence period were taken into account? Also, should not market value be taken into account? That is the traditional way of doing Things when public ownership is involved.
What about the question of relevant expenditure? The fifth report of the PAC stated:
the IBA exclude income from the sale of programmes overseas from a contractor's total income but make no corresponding reduction in the total expenditure for an appropriate part of the initial production costs. However…companies may now increasingly seek overseas sales before committing themselves to producing a major series of programmes.
The report is clear that, if the decision is taken that the programme is to be made and then sold abroad, at least some of the revenue obtained from such sales should be taken into account.
The Financial Times reported as recently as 7 June that there was:
A joint strategy aimed at establishing a leading position in the US market for video disc systems".
It listed the companies. One learns from that report that Thorn-EMI has a 50 per cent. shareholding in Thames Television. That further shows that overseas sales should be taken into account.
There is an expanding market for overseas sales. Satellite television will come well within the period laid down for the life of the IBA. Home cassettes and many other ventures come outside the category of home channels. None of those facilities would be available if the companies did not get the franchise.
We are asking for the first time for the Government's view on the levy. We are giving the IBA a long life span. The Government determine the rate, but for some time the method has been in the hands of the IBA.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I shall reply first to the points raised by the hon. Members for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the exact time span, which is the basis of the amendment. I shall also take the opportunity afforded me by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to outline the Government's view on the future of the levy. It would be preferable to do that now rather than on Third Reading, which will be much later tonight.
The hon. Member for Halifax said that we all agree that there should be a time limit. The hon. Member for Felt-ham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) regretted the


demise of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I am not sure whether my vote for its demise was wholehearted, but we did it, and there it is. That Committee did not want a time limit. From his distinguished membership of the Annan committee, the hon. Member for Derby, North will be aware that that committee felt that 15 years was about right. I shall not argue too much about the contracts, as the hon. Lady threatened me that I should not. A lifespan of 15 years would allow two contract periods of seven or eight years in the instance of the ITV contractors, enabling the authority to make any appropriate changes at about the midpoint.
Governments have extended the life of the IBA. The hon. Member for Derby, North said that that was done by ministerial fiat. It happened under a Labour Government, and I should have objected had it been done by ministerial fiat. The legislation was carried through perfectly properly by an Act in this House and also by the BBC supplemental charter. The House set a period which it evidently considered to be too short, but I wonder whether it was wise to extend the IBA's life span for further periods by other Acts. I do not make too much of it, but it is perhaps an argument in my favour. It is important for the authority to have a reasonable life span. There is also substance in my point about the contracts.
With regard to accountability, in this House we have various powers. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has been replaced by the Home Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for Derby, North made the point that that Committee has a wide range of subjects to discuss. Who am I to deny that? I am responsible for the range of subjects. Nevertheless, it can, and doubtless will, inquire into the IBA's activities. In its short life it has already inquired into a good many subjects. I welcome the reports that suit my views, and I do not necessarily welcome those that do not. The Public Accounts Committee can also inquire into the IBA's activities.
The other factor with regard to accountability is the power of this House to appoint members of the IBA board, and that relates to the hon. Lady's point about getting the balance right between

control and freedom. The hon. Lady said that we may have successors to Lord Thomson who would not be welcome to the House. If that is so, it would be the fault of this House, which has the power to appoint them. On the whole, under Governments of either party, those appointed to such boards and certainly the people at the top, have nearly always commanded a wide measure of support from the House, as does Lord Thomson. As long as I am Home Secretary, I shall try to ensure that there is a wide measure of agreement in the House about those who are appointed to the board.
The argument between 15 and 11 years is perfectly proper. I believe that the Annan committee is probably right, and that 15 years gives us a chance for the two contract periods. If we exercise the powers that we have in the House, I believe that we can ensure acountability from the IBA. It is up to the House to see that the broadcasting authorities are accountable to us. The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to my Cambridge speech. I believe that the hon. Lady is right, and that our whole broadcasting policy should be founded on the balance between control and fredom.
We in the House have an enormous part to play. My anxiety about some of the things that have been said is that perhaps we underestimate the extent of the power available to us if we are prepared to use it. For those reasons, I hope that we can stay with 15 years.
8 pm
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) spoke about the levy. If I speak in detail, it is because the levy is a taxation matter and it is important that the words that I use should be interpreted correctly. My off-the-cuff words are not always capable of such a correct and precise interpretation. Therefore, I shall stick to the words that I have before me.
The House will remember that on Second Reading I informed hon. Members that my right. hon and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I were reviewing the whole operation of the ITV levy. I explained that we were firmly of the view that the public should share in the profitability of the exploitation of a public monopoly, that we were anxious about the high marginal rate produced by the present system of levy,


together with corporation tax, and that we believed that the companies should be encouraged to be more cost-conscious.
Although the review has not yet been completed, I should like to tell the House about our present thinking on those matters. I am conscious of my responsibility not only to maintain, but to extend and enhance, the range and quality of television already available to the public. I have also to consider the effect which developments may have—as far as can be foreseen, and those are important words in broadcasting—on the totality of broadcasting in this country.
The effects of the special position in broadcasting enjoyed by the programme contracting companies and of intervention in it by the Government in the public interest are more difficult to interpret when the immediate future is uncertain. At the present time, the combination of structural changes in independent television in the early 1980s—the new franchises, the introduction of the fourth channel and, like it or not, the possibility of breakfast-time television—make the future particularly uncertain. The high marginal rate which is a feature of the present ITV levy system has some inherently unsatisfactory elements and it could in certain circumstances appear to be a positive incentive to unnecessary expenditure. Those are some of the points that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South had in mind.
However, the costs of setting up the fourth channel will be substantial and it seems clear that there will be a significant decline in the profitability of the ITV companies during the period when the fourth channel is being introduced. That in itself may be expected to provide further incentive to the ITV companies to be economical in the use of resources.
In addition, I remind the House that there is power for me, with the consent of the Treasury, to make changes in the levy by order. That would enable me, if I thought it right to do so, to change the rate of levy. There is also power for me, with the consent of the Treasury, to prescribe a minimum amount of levy to be paid by a programme contractor if I am of the opinion that the levy to be paid by the contractor is deficient because of the excessive expenditure. The use of that power would be bound to

have the effect of involving the Government more closely in the assessment of matters relevant to programme content, which would have its problems. but I intend, in consultation with the IBA, to continue to keep the use of the power under review.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I have concluded that we will not propose amendments to the Broadcasting Bill to change the present powers in respect of the levy. It must be remembered that the present profits-based levy replaced a levy based on advertising revenue which was found to be so unsatisfactory only six years ago that both political parties agreed that it could no longer stand. As a levy based purely on advertising revenue has been demonstrated to be unsatisfactory, there would be no point in going back to it. But I cannot rule out change in the future.
Although we have rejected a levy based purely on advertising revenue, it may be that a rather more sophisticated system, combining some elements of a revenue-based levy and some of a profits-based levy, would be found to be the most appropriate. If, however, we were to contemplate making such a change in the ITV levy, we should also need to consider the implications for the ILR system. For those and other reasons, the option requires more thorough study and consultations, which I am setting in train. I will report to the House any conclusions reached by my right hon. and learned friend and myself.
I hope that in answering the right hon. Member for Leeds, South in such detail I have shown that we are of a similar mind to him and that we cannot be wholly satisfied with the present arrangement. We must look in detail at a more satisfactory system for the future.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement imply that the re-examination that is being undertaken will include a look at the payments of secondary rental and levy within the ILR system? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that but did not quite say it.

Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously I want to stick carefully to the words that I have used, for reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept. However, I undertake that the various aspects of


the problem will be considered with the greatest care before we make a decision. That is why we do not want to be rushed into a decision in the context of the Bill. I suspect that I take the House with me on that.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and the hon. Member for Derby, North asked about overseas sales and relevant expenditure. I hope that the new clause that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State introduced, which is now clause 27, goes some way to meet those points. It requires the IBA to draw up a statement of the principles to be followed in ascertaining the levy liability of programme contractors and, in particular, the way in which the authority assesses relevant expenditure and relevant income. It was the purpose of the clause to go some way towards meeting the points that have been raised and I think that it does so.
On expenditure overseas, there are various balances to be struck. This country gains from exports and that gain must be weighed against the other factors that the right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned.
I apologised for having taken some time on a detailed matter, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me the opportunity to deal with it at this stage. While we may have disagreements about the length of life of the IBA, we all agree that there should be a time limit. As I have been able to set out good reasons why 15 years is reasonable, as the Annan committee thought, and I have made the important point that there is accountability, which the hon. Member for Halifax and others did not mention, I hope that the House will agree that 15 years is reasonable. I cannot accept the amendment aimed at reducing that time. However, I hope that I have been able to help the House, particularly on the question of the levy which is an important matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It would be tempting to take discussion on the levy further. We are interested in what the Home Secretary has said, and his reference to clause 27. There are all sorts of arguments on the question of time. This has been a follow-up debate to that which

took place upstairs. On behalf of my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill).

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PRELIMINARY

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 14, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 4 to 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24 to 27, 31 to 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 to 43, 45 to 49, 51, 53 to 56, 90 and 91.

Mr. Brittan: All these amendments are drafting amendments. Hon. Members will recall that in the Bill as introduced, the existing service—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We accept them.

Mr. Brittan: I gather that the House does not feel that I need to explain the amendments. On that basis, I merely move the first and shall be ready to deal with any points that may arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 4, in page 2, line 19, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 26, at end insert
and "on ITV" means in that '

No. 6, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'Service'.

No. 7, in page 2, line 29, at end insert
'and "on the Fourth Channel" means in that service;

No. 8, in page 2, line 33, leave out in and insert 'on'.

No. 9, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'in' and insert 'on '.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 3

NATURE OF THE FOURTH CHANNEL SERVICE, AND ITS RELATION TO ITV

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 3, line 4, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 14, in page 3, line 15, leave 'Service'.

No. 15, in page 3, line 18, leave 'Service'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'Main section 4(1)(d) (requirement that programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter catering for the tastes and outlooks of persons served by the station or stations and, where another language as well as English is in common use among such persons, a suitable proportion of matter in that language) shall apply in the case of the Fourth Channel only to programmes of regional origin or those subsequently transmitted in a particular region or regions'.
In an attempt to be helpful I am forgetting my own responsibilities, and the amendment will therefore have the great benefit of being dealt with without notes. It arises from discussion upstairs in Committee.
A great deal of discussion takes place from time to time about the problems of Wales that I support. There are also discussions about the problems of Northern Ireland. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that not enough concern is given to the English regions. The feeling, in the words of the amendment, is that
the tastes and outlooks of persons served by the station or stations, and, where another language as well as English is in common use among such persons, a suitable proportion of matter in that language shall apply in the case of the Fourth Channel.
If the amendment has been drawn correctly, the question of other ethnic groups, living in other parts of the country, will also arise. We are concerned about the development of the regional companies. The Annan report put forward the idea that the IBA should be called the Regional Authority and the word "region" given more formality. A great deal of excellent work has been done by

some companies in terms of regional drama—I think especially of Yorkshire Television and I would also mention some excellent Granada productions. I have no doubt that other hon. Members could make a similar claim for other companies.
Many of the programmes are made in London. Many of the people who perform in them go to Euston, Paddington and Kings Cross to take fast trains to the regions, to stay in a hotel in the middle of town for two or three days while the programme is made. A major factor that the Opposition have in mind is not only that there should be more regional programmes but that the making of those programmes should tap more regional ability and outlook. I am, therefore, proposing that programme broadcasts should contain a suitable proportion of matter catering for the tastes and outlook served by the station.
We should like to know the Government's thinking on the matter. We do not know whether the amendment is correctly drafted. This is a technical matter. It should not be discussed simply in the Welsh context that we shall reach in a short time.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I shall detain the House only briefly. I made some comments in Committee about the excellent work done in Scotland by the television companies in catering for minority language tastes. The Home Secretary and I share the distinction of being Scots. Both of us would be in some difficulty if we attempted to conduct a conversation in the language of our fellow countrymen in the North of Scotland. There are, nevertheless, in Scotland, a great many people who think not only that they should hear programmes in Scottish Gaelic but that an interest should be created and sustained in the language. I know that "An Comunn Gaidhealach", concerned with the preservation of Scottish Gaelic, wishes programme companies to pay attention to this matter.
Scottish television, like others, over the past few years, has put out a number of excellent programmes catering for these tastes. My purpose in supporting the amendment is to ensure that the new fourth channel should continue to put out programmes to cater for these groups. This is not the great issue that it is in


Wales. It is, nevertheless, an issue. It is worthy of consideration. As I stated in Committee, I am not making a great issue of the matter, but I should like those concerned with the operation of the fourth channel to know that a number of hon. Members would like to see the language sustained.

Mr. Whitehead: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for not rising to move the amendment as I had agreed to do. I was in the business of shedding a few immortal words during the discussion on the previous amendment, during which the Minister was imperiously waved down by my right hon. Friend before he had had time to suggest why the drafting amendment was necessary. I have accepted that. I hope that the amendments mean nothing in terms of the spirit in which the previous amendment was universally welcomed in Committee.
The amendment that we are discussing derives essentially from the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee, when we queried the provision that main section 4(1)(d) should not apply because, as the Minister said, this was not a regional but a national service, and, therefore, the regional provisions that were the main standby and guarantee that small groups, particularly those speaking languages other than English, and other than Welsh or Gaelic, could receive a proportion of programmes in their own languages catering to their own tastes and outlook—did not apply.
The point that I was trying to make to the Minister in Committee was that within the existing legislation—the main output will continue to apply in the ITV service—they have the protection of statute. It is equally true that in regard to the other two services on the BBC, there is a provision that the BBC, on the whole, has upheld, to provide programmes, though not necessarily at peak times, for ethnic groupings. Admirable programmes in Urdu and occasionally other languages are available on the three services.
It seemed to us curious that in the one new service—one of the jewels in whose crown would be catering for minority services—this protection for minorities was to be specifically excluded. We

argued that there should be provision for the special needs of those citizens whose first language was neither English or Welsh. Since that cannot be put in a regional context, because we are legislating for a national and not a regional service, we should say that this provision, as a national requirement, for languages other than English, should be added to the Bill.
If it is in the Bill, in the form of the words that we have suggested in the amendment, there will be a requirement on the board of the fourth channel company to see that some proportion of its programmes are made in the idiom of, and catering for, the tastes and outlook of the various minority groups to whom we have referred.
As the fourth channel service extends and develops, and regional opt-out programmes becomes possible within the service, it will be more necessary, in those regional opt-out programmes, to include a specific proportion of the more specialised programming that we have in mind. That is why we withdrew the amendment in Committee but told the Minister that we would have a shot at drafting another amendment, which took the requirements qualifying section 4(1)(d) of the principal Act and extended to them that protection for minority groups that we feel is necessary.
I look forward to the Minister's reply on these points. He knows that we withdrew the amendment in Committee.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can assist the House better than by explaining in general terms the Government's thinking on the whole question of the regional application of the fourth channel. We have not thought it appropriate to include a provision along the lines of the amendment—as I indicated in Committee—because in the first instance the fourth channel is to be a national channel. I welcome the opportunity to make it clear that in saying that we are in no way seeking to prevent, delay or discourage the gradual development of regional variations and the showing of programmes of a regional origin on a national basis.
Both are developments to which we ought to look forward. There is no reason why the showing of programmes of a regional origin on a national basis


should not happen from the outset. The development of regional variations is something that obviously can occur only as and when the service develops. For those reasons, I do not think that it is appropriate that a requirement of that kind should be imposed at the outset.
I recognise that the original amendment was withdrawn in Committee and that a fresh one has been proposed in its place—one that is a valiant effort to cover the same ground. However, the objections to it remain as stated in Committee. I am glad to have had the chance of making it quite clear that we are in no way seeeking to discourage the provision of programmes that cater for the tastes of particular regions, but we do not think it appropriate to give legislative force to that.

Mr. Whitehead: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in that I do not think that we would seek to divide the House. Having cited one paragraph to the Minister, I leave him with another one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) has just indicated, we have written in special provisions for one minority grouping—the Welsh. I would not for a moment suggest that we should not do so. Indeed, I do not think that those provisions go far enough. But having done it for the Welsh, it seems inconsistent to say that we cannot do it for any other group. I think that we may live to regret that fact, in view of the enormous diversity of different cultures that exist and that should remain in the United Kingdom.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn

Amendments made:

No. 17, in page 3, line 44, leave out 'in the Fourth Channel Service' and insert:
'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 19, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'in both ITV and the Fourth Channel Service' and insert:
'on both ITV and the Fourth Channel'.

No. 20, in page 4, line 8, leave out 'in the Fourth Channel Service' and insert:
'on the Fourth Channel'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Gwilym Roberts, to move amendment No. 21.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: rose—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we can be clear on what it is that we are voting. As I understand it—I know that you will correct me if I am wrong—there is to be no vote on amendment No. 22, which is to be called for discussion only. Can that be confirmed? That would cause a problem, because, much as we would prefer to vote on amendment No. 21, we understand procedurally why the subject to be discussed is exactly the same as that contained in amendment No. 22. We should like a discussion on the argument between the two sides that has arisen from the change of policy of the Government after they were elected.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), amendment No. 21 is not a matter in which we want to get involved. However, because of the way in which the amendments have been grouped, that is the only amendment on which we can vote. I seek your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can have a debate on the relevant question that divides the House.

Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If by not moving amendment No. 21 we have the opportunity of voting on amendment No. 22, that might further the wishes of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the wish of the House should be complied with on this occasion. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not moving amendment No. 21?

Mr. Roberts: indicated assent.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 9, leave out from 'Wales' to 'and' in line 10, and insert:
'contain all the Welsh language programmes transmitted in Wales;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in clause 4, in page 4, line 38, at end insert:
'(2C) As regards the Fourth Channel service in Wales the Authority shall appoint a separate Board, linked to that of the subsidiary,


whose duty will be to plan a separate programme schedule for Wales, appoint suitable Programme Executives and staff for Wales and generally conduct the Fourth Channel service as one distinctive in the special character and interests of Wales, and an appropriate subvention from the finance made available to the Fourth Channel subsidiary will be allocated for the cost of programmes specifically purchased for the Fourth Channel service in Wales'.
No. 80, in clause 17, in page 14, line 31, after 'subsection (2)' insert:
'and in accordance with its responsibilities under section 4(2C) of this Act'.
No. 108, in clause 20, in page 17, line 22, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
'(2) The Secretary of State shall invite the BBC Broadcasting Council for Wales and the IBA Advisory Committee for Wales to nominate 6 persons each to serve on a Broadcasting Co-ordinating Council for Wales (Cyngor Cyd-drefnu Darlledu), and the Secretary of State shall further nominate 6 persons to serve on the Council from among independent producers working in Wales: the Council shall—

(a) have a duty to co-ordinate the broadcasting of a service for Wales in the Welsh language, and it shall therefore be responsible for co-ordinating all decisions regarding the scheduling of programmes between all programme sources in Wales;
(b) be able to decide in consultation with the broadcasting authorities upon which channel or channels Welsh language output shall be transmitted;
(c) consult with the BBC and the IBA about the funding to be made available for Welsh language programme production, and shall advise the IBA on any compensatory payments that shall be made to a programme contractor in Wales for the screening of BBC originating programmes;
(d) be empowered to advise on the transfer of funds for the commissioning and coordination of production facilities between the BBC and IBA and independent contractors operating in Wales; and
(e) shall publish an annual report of its activities'.

Mr. Morgan: The amendment stands in my name and the names of the hon. Members for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). Its effect would be to implement the recommendations of a number of committees which have considered over a period of 20 years altogether—particularly during the last six—the best use to which the fourth channel could be put in Wales when it came into existence.
Incidentally, the amendment also reflects the views of such bodies as the Welsh Broadcasting Council and the University of Wales and, perhaps most im

portant of all, what appeared until September of last year to be the accepted policy of all the political parties representing Welsh constituencies in this House. That is a matter to which I shall briefly return later if I have time.
I want first to trace the virtually unanimous recommendations of the committees which have examined this proposal, beginning with the one on broadcasting under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Pilkington, as he then was, which reported as long ago as 1960, at a time when the fourth channel as such had not been heard of. In those distant days, as some of us will remember, such Welsh language programmes as came on the air were for the most part broadcast at impossibly early or late hours, generally the latter. "Too little and too late" was an apt description of Welsh broadcasting at that time.
Although the Pilkington committee made no specific recommendation in this regard so far as I am aware, it clearly took serious note of the representations that were made to it two decades ago. It said:
There must, we were told, be a Welsh programme which would portray the distinctive Welsh culture. The present programmes were described by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire as alien to the Welsh, whether English or Welsh speaking".
It went on:
According to some, such was the influence of television that, unless in the very near future enough Welsh speaking programmes were put on in peak viewing hours, the cause of the Welsh language and Welsh culture would suffer irreparable harm".
It is only fair to add that in the years which followed that report a substantial improvement was seen in the television service in Wales, due mainly to the establishment of the Broadcasting Council for Wales, the beginning of transmissions by BBC Wales from Wenvoe early in 1964 and the extension of commercial television. Even so, those arrangements, better though they were, did not really begin to satisfy the widely held desire in Wales for a television service that would give a special place to the Welsh language.
It was not until the early 1970s that the idea of setting aside the fourth television channel for this purpose—now a prospect on the horizon, albeit a distant one—was first mooted. That idea may be said to have crystallised in July 1973 when the


then Lord Mayor of Cardiff arranged a conference of all the main organisations and institutions in Wales from which a unanimous call went forth to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—that short-lived Ministry was then in existence—to give special consideration to Wales when deciding upon the future of the fourth channel.
It might be said, perhaps, by way of criticism, that up to then the project had been considered only in a Welsh context and not in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. But that position, if it existed at all, was remedied by the Crawford committee on television reception whose report was published in 1974.
It is not without significance that the original remit of the committee was merely to discuss the question of television reception in rural areas. Following public pressure the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications decided to extend the committee's terms of reference to allow it to make a special survey of the possibility of using the fourth channel in Wales for Welsh language programmes.
8.30 pm
The recommendation produced by the committee was decisive. Let it be emphasised that it had no axe to grind and could not be characterised as a committee having, either by reason of its composition or its function, any prejudice or bias in favour of the Welsh language. The committee's recommendation was that:
whatever decision may be reached about the use of the Fourth channel in the rest of the United Kingdom, it should in Wales be allotted as soon as possible to a separate service in which Welsh-language programmes should be given priority. In our view, this should be achieved through the BBC and HTV moving their existing Welsh-language items to this service and co-operating closely at all levels, through suitable machinery, in expanding them.
As a noteworthy tailpiece, which I emphasise, the committee added that
The cost would represent an investment in domestic, cultural and social harmony in the United Kingdom.
As if the Crawford recommendations were not enough they were powerfully reinforced by the Siberry report published in 1975 which, among other things, expressed itself as satisfied that the establishment of a Welsh language television

service was viable. It went on to specify the probable costs of creating the service.
Finally, in 1977 the Annan report appeared and recommended that the Siberry proposal should be implemented as soon as the Government could find the necessary finance. It said, further, that the provision of a fourth channel in Wales should certainly precede its use in the rest of the United Kingdom. What was the political reaction to these recommendations, all of which were made during the period of office of the previous Administration? I can fairly say, in a sentence, that the reaction was entirely favourable from all quarters.
The Crawford report was accepted by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, who specifically declared that the then Government accepted all the Crawford report recommendations in principle and that a working party would be set up to examine the technical and financial problems. It is only right to add, however, that five years, two committees and one working party later no action has been taken in the matter even though the Siberry and Annan recommendations had received the approbation of the previous Government.
As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, not only did a commitment to establish a Welsh language fourth channel appear prominently in the Welsh manifesto but a solemn undertaking to that effect was embodied in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) does not seek to mislead anyone on that point. I shall come to the question of the Welsh manifesto. I take the matter personally as it was my decision, and I shall explain to the House why I took it. It is entirely my responsibility for stating such a commitment on behalf of the Government and that is why I intend to reply to the point. But my hon. and learned Friend cannot, and must not, say that that commitment in the manifesto was repeated in the Gracious Speech. If he looks at the words he will find that it was not.

Mr. Morgan: I did look at the words quite recently and I must say that that was my interpretation. Let me put it this way. I think that any reasonable person


would have interpreted the words in that way. I think that I can fairly put it like that.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the Home Secretary has intervened at this point, perhaps I may remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that when his right hon. Friend was Shadow Home Secretary, he gave an interview to the Western Mail just prior to the general election, in which he said:
The Conservatives have adopted the policy of concentrating Welsh on the fourth channel under the IBA's control because, despite obvious drawbacks, it seemed to produce the widest consensus.
If the right hon. Gentleman could say that it was the widest consensus before the election, what has happened since the election to make it no longer the widest consensus?

Mr. Morgan: In view of all that has been said, I can only say that I was astonished, to put it mildly, that a promise made in such a gilt-edged form in May should have been so suddenly shattered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at Cambridge in September—and that, seemingly, following virtually no consultation with those most concerned.
I appreciate that circumstances can arise when the rescinding of even a solemn undertaking may be justified, but frankly I can see none in this case. The position was precisely the same in September as it was in May. The pros and cons of the case were quite unaltered.
I would not seek to argue for a moment that there are no cons. It has been frequently argued, for example, that it is for the benefit of Welsh language television that, for example, a programme such as "Heddiw" follows on a widely popular one such as "Nationwide". [Interruption.] It is argued, and there may be something in that argument.
I go further and say that I freely confess that up to a comparatively late stage in this long-lasting argument I was unconvinced of the merits of a Welsh fourth channel. But ultimately I was driven to the conclusion that this was the best and, indeed, the only way of saving the Welsh language at a time when it is fighting for its life in a way that it has never had to do before, at a time when the next two decades will be more fateful for it than any two previous centuries in its history.
I stress that it must not be overlooked, either, that the fourth channel solution, which so many in Wales support, the bringing about of which is the purpose of the amendment, has the outstanding merit of being equally fair to both the Welsh-speaking minority and the non-Welsh-speaking majority in the Principality. So far as the latter are concerned, it means that there will be no interference, or only minimal interference, with their favourite programmes. So far as the Welsh speakers are concerned, on the other hand, it would give the language a status and a scope for development which could never be achieved by sprinkling Welsh programmes here and there among English ones—an arrangement which, to my mind, can lead only to greater irritation and divisiveness—if that is the right word—between the Welsh and English speaking populations of Wales.
In effect, as I see it, the Home Secretary's alternative proposals really amount to trying to force not a quart, indeed, but a half gallon into a pint pot.
I am not supporting the amendment purely or even primarily because of the undertaking given by the Government and then, in my view, unjustifiably broken—even though I feel strongly that Governments should abide by their commitments. My main purpose is to achieve what is best for the Welsh language at this critical time, while at the same time creating no embarrassment or difficulty for the majority in Wales who do not speak the language. I regard this as something which should be entirely non-party and above party. It is imperative, of course, that the solution we now adopt should be the right one.
Just as I readily accept that there are cons as well as pros to the argument, so I recognise the fact that there are people in all political parties, even in Plaid Cymru—whose opinons on this subject I respect—who take a different view. I remain convinced, however, that the fourth channel solution is not only the best but the one that probably commends itself to the majority of the Welsh people.
On occasions such as this I like to think of the words of a great French statesman, Jules Favre, in 1871, when, after the crushing defeat of the French army by the Germans, the French nation was concerned with deciding upon its future


form of Government. No one could say that it was not spoilt for choice, because it was able to choose from the Bonapartists, from two lines of kings, and a republic. M. Favre said this:
I am a monarchist but I am going to support the Republic because I think it is a form of Government that will divide Frenchmen least.
I think I can fairly say that the solution provided by this amendment is the one that would divide Welshmen least. It is for that reason in particular that I commend it to the House.

Mr. Alec Jones: Perhaps I should say a word of gratitude to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the procedures of this House had not allowed a Division on amendment No. 22 it would have caused difficulties to us and great offence to a large number of people in Wales. Therefore, I am delighted that our procedures have allowed a Division to take place. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) for withdrawing his amendment and enabling the Division to take place.
The Home Secretary would be well advised in this matter to pay heed to the contribution made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), who speaks on this issue with the true voice of Wales. He outlined the lengthy discussions and reasons which led to the consensus view which prevailed throughout Wales, that Welsh language television should be on one channel only. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was an issue which should be non-party and above-party. That was the belief of us all. It is the action of the Government which has unfortunately made this matter a party issue.
The amendments are an attempt to deal more effectively than does the Bill with one important aspect of Welsh life—Welsh language and broadcasting.
The 1971 census showed that 21 per cent. of the people of Wales spoke Welsh. They naturally want to listen to, and watch, the programmes in that language at reasonable times. The census also showed that 79 per cent. of the people do not speak Welsh. They want programmes in the language that they understand, with the minimum of interference, though they are willing to give

up some of their programmes to enable the Welsh language programmes to be produced. At present, Welsh language speakers feel that their rights have been ignored. They feel a sense of injustice in this matter. Hence the campaign to refuse to pay television licence fees. I must say quite clearly from this Box that the Opposition give no support to those who are conducting or taking part in that campaign any more than we would support any others.
I find it very strange that if one of my constituents does not pay the television licence fee he is soon dealt with very harshly indeed. Similarly, I understand the sense of injustice which led the past Member for Carmarthen, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, to propose that he will fast until death. I must say again from this Box that the Opposition have no political sympathy with Mr. Evans or with his views on this matter. I sincerely hope that his true friends will persuade him to abandon this foolish action. I say to him—if I may speak to Mr. Gwynfor Evans through this speech this evening—that I have always considered the best place in which to fight the Tories to be this Chamber. Certainly, I never believed that I would be troubled by them elsewhere.
English speakers resent the interruption, the constant switching that they have to do from one channel to the other, and the overlapping which inevitably takes place and which prevents them from seeing complete programmes of their own choice. In South and Mid-Wales, more and more people are turning their television aerials to other regions, thereby losing Welsh language programmes and the regional programmes in English about Wales and designed for Wales. As the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh indicated, the arguments have gone on for many years. The problem has been how to accommodate those views.
8.45 pm
There have been committees, reports and conferences. Out of those came a consensus that all Welsh language programmes should be broadcast on one television channel. The consensus was not easily arrived at. Any consensus in Wales is difficult to arrive at. Both sides had to give up something. It will be a great tragedy if that consensus is now to be broken. The introduction of the fourth


channel gives us an opportunity to satisfy that consensus. Amendment No. 22 does seek to do that, and I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support it in the Lobby tonight. Amendment No. 23, which has not been called, was an attempt to do the same. Amendment No. 21 was not moved, and I shall not waste time dealing with it.
The people of Wales were entitled to believe that the consensus would be implemented whichever party won the general election. We made it clear then, on Second Reading, in Committee, and in the debate on amendment No. 23, that the Welsh language programmes should be broadcast on one channel. That was our policy, and it remains our policy and our objective.
The Conservative Party similarly expressed that view, and so sold itself to the people of Wales in the general election. In its manifesto it said:
We are anxious to see Welsh broadcasting starting on the fourth channel as quickly as possible. We believe that this could be done more cheaply, simply and at least as quickly if both the BBC and HTV Welsh programmes are transmitted on the fourth channel.
That was a promise to the people of Wales and to all those who had laboured to bring about that consensus. It is a promise that should not be broken by the Government.
The Home Secretary has referred in the past to the words in the Queen's Speech and has said that the Speech made no such promise. Among other things, the Queen's Speech stated:
they will give active support to the maintenance of the Welsh language and will seek an early start with Welsh broadcasting on the fourth television channel in Wales."—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, cc. 49–50.]
If the Home Secretary is now saying that when those words were included that was in his mind, he had a duty to Wales to spell out how he would make that early start. The people of Wales believe the Queen's Speech to mean the fulfilment of the Conservative election manifesto. The Home Secretary now uses—

Mr. Leo Abse: Would it not be expected that, if within the Queen's Speech there was intended to be foreshadowed a major change of policy, as was clearly indicated by the Home

Secretary when he spoke in Cambridge, that was the moment to announce it? Is it not a shabby action that the Home Secretary should now intervene and seek to spell out of those words a justification for a change which, if it was in his mind and if he had had courage and honour, should have been included in the Queen's Speech at that time?

Mr. Jones: I agree with everythig that my hon. Friend said. If it had been the intention of the Government, when the Queen's Speech was written and presented to the House, to break their promise and to break the consensus in the shabby and miserable way that they now propose, it was their moral duty to include that in the Queen's Speech. The Home Secretary is now using the same arguments as were quoted in the election manifesto for putting the television programmes on two channels.
In the manifesto, the arguments for putting television programmes in Wales on one channel were threefold: it could be done more cheaply, more simply and at least as quickly. When the Home Secretary has attempted to make a defence of those matters, he has used the same arguments for his present position as he used when he wrote those words, or whoever wrote them for him, in the manifesto.
The Home Secretary and the Cabinet are breaking the consensus. They are destroying the harmony which has existed. They are increasing the frustrations felt by English speakers in Wales and fuelling the flames of bitterness felt by Welsh speakers.
Newspaper reports suggest that the Secretary of State for Wales, in announcing his change of view, acknowledged the error of his ways for three reasons. The first reason was the likely public reaction. That reaction was known when the consensus was drawn up and when the manifesto was presented to the people of Wales.
The second reason was that it was a matter of finance. Yet the manifesto stated that it could be done more cheaply.
The third reason was the fear of isolating the Welsh language. That argument was thrashed out year in, year out, before the consensus was arrived at.
If the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary are concerned about public reaction, let me remind them of the letter addressed to the Home Secretary from people in religious, educational and other responsible positions in Wales drawing attention, first, to the fact that the consensus existed and, secondly, stating:
Rarely has the Welsh nation as a whole demonstrated such a common mind… It was a most regrettable breach of solemn promises and an obvious way of fomenting bitterness… Government should show substantial concern for ensuring that in this matter the views of the vast majority of Welsh people… are not disregarded.
I believe that the situation can, should, and will force the Government to think again on this important issue. Unless it is resolved satisfactorily, it will divide Wales for years to come.
Clause 4 was the subject of a lengthy discussion in Committee. The Minister said that the running of the fourth channel—the providing and the putting out of programmes—was better done, not by the IBA directly, but by a subsidiary.
Amendment No. 30 relates to the arrangements that can be made for running the fourth channel in Wales. It is not that we accept the Government's proposals. We profoundly disagree with the Government's proposals for dealing with television in Wales. But if we have to go down that road, it is necessary to have a separate board for Wales linked with a subsidiary board. There should be a separate board to deal with the planning of programmes, the appointment of staff and the running of a service in Wales, because Wales has a distinctive cultural difference from other parts of the United Kingdom.
At some time, we shall have to look at the possibility of a genuine all-Wales independent television network. It is difficult for me to understand how it is possible to finance an ITV station in the Grampian area and not one in Wales, but I shall not pursue that issue this evening. No one can deny that the people of Wales have a different cultural and linguistic background, and that there are problems associated with that language and culture that do not exist in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I am not arguing that Wales is better in that respect—although on most occasions I believe that it is—but it is different as a consequence of its history, language and culture. There is a need for a separate board to run the fourth channel. I do not believe that the subsidiary body, as spelt out in the Bill, can be expected to run the fourth channel and to appreciate and cater for the differences that exist in Wales. A separate board for Wales is essential if the needs of Wales are to be met. For that reason we shall seek a Division on amendment No. 30. Without amendments Nos. 30 and 80 the fourth channel could turn out to be a ragbag of miscellaneous programmes, unless it is given its own identity within Wales, with positive planning by a special Welsh board of the fourth channel subsidiary company of the IBA.
The Government have broken their promise. They have not justified the change. They have not justified their action to the people of Wales. In breaking their promise, the Government are encouraging friction between English speakers and Welsh speakers in Wales. The Government will be called to account for the contempt that they exhibit towards the people of Wales in this matter.
The Government should either accept amendment No. 22, or at least say that they are willing to look again at the matter. It is no good for the people of Wales to have a solution dictated to them principally by English Members of Parliament. There are differences that must be taken into account. But, if the Home Secretary is prepared to reconsider the matter, the Government can partially restore their self-respect and they will show a true appreciation of the problems regarding broadcasting in Wales and indicate that they are prepared to do something about them which will be acceptable to the people of Wales.

Mr. Whitelaw: It may be helpful to the House if I try to make some general comments now, and then, at the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply to the various other speeches that have been made.
First, I wish to dispose of several points. After consideration of the way in which the fourth channel operating under the IBA would function, my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for Wales and I, having considered in detail what we believed would be best for all the people of Wales under a plan based on an IBA rather than an open broadcasting authority, decided that it would be right to change our minds.
9 pm
I have been in politics long enough to have seen Governments of all parties change their minds for the better—when the change that they have decided to make has proved in time to be right. I have never been able to believe in an absolute rigid adherence to a manifesto if another course is seen to be better. If in the long run it is wiser to change one's mind it is better to do so.
I admit freely that before the Queen's Speech was written I had some doubts, when I began to consider the possibility of a scheme for the IBA, whether it was right to do it all on the fourth channel. The Queen's Speech does not say that all will be done on the fourth channel. My critics must admit that.

Mr. Alec Jones: What did the Home Secretary mean by the words in the Queen's Speech? Was he still having second thoughts at that time, or had he firmly decided on a sell-out for the people of Wales?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have admitted freely that I was having second thoughts. What we promised in the Queen's Speech is exactly what we intend to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I wish to get this matter out of the way. I am happy to be criticised, but I am telling the House, honestly, as I am entitled to, that I said that we would make an early start on Welsh broadcasting on the fourth channel. The Queen's Speech did not say that it would be done exclusively on the fourth channel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgrace"] It did not say that. However, if it will help the House I shall accept criticism for that, too. It is fair for me to make the point. If the House does not accept it, let it forget it. Let us proceed on that basis. However, I still maintain that we are fulfilling the Queen's Speech. I am entitled to maintain that.

Mr. Abse: Is it not clear that without in any way indicating that he had some doubts, by using words of that kind in

the Queen's Speech, given what had already been said in the manifesto, the right hon. Gentleman was misleading the House? How could anybody imagine that there were other doubts when there had been a firm commitment? It does not become the Home Secretary, as a man of honour, to suggest to the House that he was being anything like frank in the words used in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Whitelaw: I was. However, the House does not accept what I say. If hon. Members will not accept the plain fact it is no use my arguing about it.
I turn to some other matters that I wish to get out of the way. No one will argue that the proposal in any way undermines our clear commitment to the Welsh language. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already taken many measures that show that he is determined to give the fullest support to the Welsh language. No one will deny that.
It is only fair that I should make that clear. I am glad to note that Opposition Members accept that that is so. Actions frequently speak louder than words. My right hon. Friend has taken the actions that show his determination to uphold the Welsh language. He is entitled to claim that, and I am entitled to claim it for him.
There is no doubt that the Government are strongly committed to the survival and development of the Welsh language. We have made that perfectly clear. Although Opposition Members may disagree with me on other subjects, I am glad to note that we are at one on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If Opposition Members are not at one with me they cannot have any regard for what my right hon. Friend has done.

Mr. William Hamilton: He should be making this speech.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think so. Clearly I am responsible for a broadcasting Bill. If I did not make this speech the hon. Gentleman would say that I had no honour and that I had no guts. I am not prepared to accept that criticism. If I had not made this speech I would have lacked those qualities. The hon. Gentleman knows that he would have made such accusations.

Mr. Alan Williams: We fully appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. No doubt we would have criticised him if he had not taken part in the debate. However, we do not understand why the Minister of State, Home Office should wind up the debate.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry; there seems to be a misunderstanding. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales will wind up the debate.

Mr. Williams: Why not the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Whitelaw: I said earlier that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales would wind up the debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister is not an Under-Secretary of State and, therefore. I could not have meant him
We may be asked why we put forward this proposal and why we decided that it was in the interests of all viewers in Wales. There may be differences of opinion about the methods, but we propose to make a considerable increase in the amount of Welsh language broadcasting. We propose 20 hours. That is as much as the previous Labour Government suggested in their Open Broadcasting Authority proposals. It may be more than 20 hours. There can be no argument about the amount of time that is being given to Welsh language broadcasting on television. I am glad to note that Opposition Members accept that.
There are two ways of ensuring that the Welsh language has the best possible treatment on television. First, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) was right to say that Annan and others recommended that if there was to be an Open Broadcasting Authority such as our predecessors favoured the way would be clear for a Welsh language service on the fourth channel in Wales. The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) and others have made much of the cost. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have consistently made it clear that in the long run our proposals for Welsh language broadcasting will be cheaper than the proposals of the Labour Party would have been, because of the

nature of the Bill and the position of the IBA.
We settled for our proposals because we believed that our proposals for the IBA represented the best option for the Welsh speaking and non-Welsh speaking inhabitants of Wales. We felt that it would give them a wide choice of worthwhile programmes.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Home Secretary said that it was his intention to maintain at least 20 hours of Welsh language programmes. If the number of hours are constant between the two proposals, and the actual hours of broadcasting are the overwhelming cost of any service provided in the Welsh language, how much difference does the structure make in cost terms?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Open Broadcasting Authority was to be financed wholly by the taxpayer, whereas our proposals for the IBA will mean that the service will be financed considerably by advertising revenue. That is the difference. The OBA would have been a total cost on the taxpayer. I believe that our system must be cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run.
I turn to the question of the timing of the programmes, which is extremely important. Even with 20 hours, if these hours were tucked away at inconvenient times it would not meet the proposals that we have in mind. For this reason we have included in the Bill provisions designed to ensure that clashes between the two programmes are avoided and that the proper proportion of Welsh language programmes are shown at peak times.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh said that there were pros and cons. There will be those who say that perhaps the two-channel solution will work, but a single channel would be much better. If one removes the emotion from this subject, one can see that there are arguments both ways. We certainly saw the argument for the single channel, otherwise we would not have to put it in our manifesto. Looking at the overall situation, we believe that the solution that we have put forward is better. I see the argument that was put forward by the right hon. Member for Rhondda about the IBA taking BBC programmes under contract. It is equally clear that that


would mean complex institutional arrangements, which would make the service as a whole difficult to organise. That is the view taken by those who must run these channels. That may not be the whole answer, but it is important.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Home Secretary now saying that BBC Wales has indicated to him that it will be too complicated for it to put programmes on channel 4?

Mr. Whitelaw: No. certainly not. I am perfectly entitled to have discussions with a wide variety of people about a very complex institutional arrangement, which is what it would be. I doubt whether it would work. I also believe that it is simpler and easier for each authority to retain responsibility over its own programmes on its own channel. There is a considerable argument for having both of them committed to that.
A single channel would require substantial Government finance. There cannot be any doubt about that. Therefore, one must consider the best method of providing the Welsh language broadcasting service at sensible cost for the community and in the interests of all the people in Wales. That is what we have done, and I still believe that that is the best solution.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I, have consistently said that our proposal offers the fastest, simplest and most economic way of providing an increase in Welsh language television broadcasting of a high standard, in a way that will serve the interests of all viewers in Wales and the Welsh language in particular.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The Home Secretary had one view before the election and another after. He says that the Secretary of State for Wales had been with him all along. Was there an agreement with the Secretary of State for Wales immediately afer the election that the fourth channel in Wales, which was supported by everyone, should be abondoned?

Mr. Whitelaw: The decision that I announced in my Cambridge speech was a Government decision, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I were associated.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is giving the impression that after the election he changed his mind, and perhaps twisted the arm of the Secretary of State for Wales to make him agree.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is the reverse of the truth to suggest that I twisted my right hon. Friend's arm. I have no power to do that. It was a Government decision. It is a Government Bill.
The proposals have been overtaken by a considerable amount of argument and emotion. I am the first to understand the latter. The Government have put forward the proposals in the Bill on the basis of providing the same amount of television time—and we hope more, as time goes on—that would have been provided under any other scheme. We believe that the proposals will be fair to Welsh language broadcasting and serve all the people in Wales to the best advantage. Let us give the proposals a chance, and see who is right. We believe that we are right. We have demonstrated our commitment to the Welsh language.
We should, however, review progress. I propose to request the BBC to ask the National Broadcasting Council and the IBA to ask the National Advisory Committee, which clause 22 makes statutory, to report each year on the television programmes in Welsh broadcast by the BBC and IBA, respectively, and how they serve the interests of people residing in Wales. When I receive those reports I undertake to lay them before the House. If they prove the Government wrong, we shall be prepared to make changes, as necessary. I cannot be fairer than that. We believe that our proposals will provide the best service, but others disagree. We shall not be stiff-necked if the reports prove us wrong.
I cannot advise the House to accept the amendments. I appreciate that many hon. Members will wish to register their votes against us, and I welcome what the right hon. Member for Rhondda said about various protests.
The Government will be prepared to change if there is evidence to show that it is right to do so. That surely gives to those who are anxious the chance to say that there is a way to continue to press the Government. That is the democratic


way. Against the background of what the Government believe to be best, I have made a substantial concession. I wish to continue with the Bill as it stands, but I am prepared to receive reports and to consider them fairly with all the hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Last year, before and after the election, all the political parties were committed to a Welsh language service on one channel. I am honoured to have been able to put my name to the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan). The Home Secretary has tried to compromise, but he has failed to convince me—and I do not think that he will convince the people of Wales—that his proposals are acceptable.
We admire the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh because he has stuck to his principles over the past 12 months. However, it is no wonder that the electorate of Wales is getting disillusioned with politicians if they can be seen to go back on their promises as easily as have the Government over the fourth channel in Wales.
The Government have chosen to ignore the wishes of the people of Wales, who have clearly indicated that they would prefer, for a number of reasons, to have Welsh language programmes on one television channel. To Welsh men and women the survival of the language is a matter of great importance. The setting up of a Welsh language service on one channel is seen by many experts as well as by many enthusiasts, as an essential part of a plan to save the language.
During the past few years, those of us who are Welsh-speaking have been proud of Radio Cymru, which has its programmes in Welsh. I have not heard a single Welshman or Welsh Conservative Member criticising those programmes which are entirely in Welsh and are broadcast in the morning. The station has been a wonderful asset to those in Wales who speak and live the language.
However, the Government have chosen yet again to turn their back on the wishes of the people of Wales. It has been made clear to me that even if Ministers in the Welsh Office were brave enough to put forward the views of their fellow Welsh

men on this point or any other, they would be ignored by the Cabinet, which seems determined to treat Wales as a second-class nation.
Whether our language lives or dies is of little importance to the Government. The total arrogance and stupidity of that attitude is beyond belief. They are creating animosity and bad feeling where none should have been.
Once again, Mr. Weatherill, the Government, with unbelievable arrogance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not name me. This is a Report stage.

Mr. Howells: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was getting carried away, as the Welsh do sometimes.
With unbelievable arrogance, the Government have not only broken their own well-documented promises but have flown in the face of conclusions drawn in numerous official reports on the subject as well as public opinion in Wales. I have spoken before on the insensitivity of this Administration in dealing with Welsh affairs. This is yet another example of the callous attitude that puts commercial considerations before cultural excellence and that only counts success in cash terms. I will not bore the House with what was stated in the Queen's Speech. It has been quoted before, as has the Conservative manifesto.
In a Welsh affairs debate on 23 May 1979, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales said:
Television and, to a lesser extent, perhaps, radio broadcasting have a major influence in the every day life of the people of Wales. Our clear intention is to press ahead with plans for Welsh language broadcasting on the fourth channel. There is certainly every present reason to suppose that this could be achieved as quickly as the previous Administration would have been able to put their cumbersome plans into effect, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that our intentions would result in less broadcasting in Welsh.
It is our aim that on an agreed basis both broadcasting authorities should produce Welsh language programmes on the new channel. I recognise that in that situation there would have to be some means of co-ordinating the programme input of the BBC and the IBA's programme contractor in Wales".—[Official Report, 23 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 1144.]
I am convinced that the Secretary of State for Wales was in favour of the fourth channel being allocated to the


people of Wales but was persuaded by members of the Cabinet to change his views. I had the privilege last year to chair a national conference in Aberystwyth attended by members of local authorities throughout Wales and a number of eminent people. I was asked to write to the Secretary of State for Wales to urge him and the Government to reconsider their decision not to establish a Welsh service on the fourth channel. It is a great pity that the answer received from the Secretary of State for Wales was not satisfactory.
If the Government will not accept the amendment, it means that the Welsh language will not have its rightful place in the broadcasting system. This will lower the morale of all who love and care for the language. I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

Mr. Tom Hooson (Brecon and Radnor): The heat in the Chamber has gone up considerably in the last one and a half hours. Anyone reflecting on the content of the debate might find it astonishing that so much anger should be created on an issue where the number of hours of Welsh television planned under the Welsh proposals is not one second less than was ever intended under any previous proposals. The basis of the financing of those programmes is far sounder than could have been achieved by the establishment of an Open Broadcasting Authority. If one looks at the case for dividing Welsh language television transmission between two channels, one can argue that not only will there be not one second less Welsh on television but that it will reach a wider audience. The greater the number of channels on which programmes are broadcast, the greater is the reach of the language. That is a point to which I shall return.
It is high time that we introduced some element of fact into the discussion. I shall endeavour to do that in a calm manner—

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House prior to the election. He did not hear the speeches made by his colleagues, now on the Government Front Bench. He is missing the whole point of this argument. The consensus was that the Welsh language should be put on the one channel. The Minister said that the non-Welsh-speaking majority

of viewers and the Welsh-speaking minority both want Welsh language programmes placed on a separate channel. That is the Government's commitment, and the hon. Gentleman should address himself to that point, which is what the debate is all about.

Mr. Hooson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point of this debate. Is is exactly the point that I shall develop right now. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) traced the history of the numerous committees and working parties which had considered this subject. I do not intend to cover the same ground. However, I should like to summarise pages 413 and 414 of the Annan report, where the crucial developments were cogently set out. The seeds of confusion which have led to this rather bad-tempered debate can be found very clearly in the report of the Crawford committee, which came out in 1974. Here I quote briefly from Annan's summary of the Crawford committee:
They recommmended that the fourth UHF television channel in Wales should be allocated to a separate service, in which Welsh language programmes should be given priority,"—
never exclusivity—
and that this service should be introduced as soon as possible, without waiting for a decision on the use of the fourth channel in the rest of the United Kingdom.
That was the point at which the seeds of confusion were sown, because for the five years that followed the thoughts about Wales by every party in this House were exclusively within blinkers, without considering the inter-relationship which exists between Wales and England. That is fundamental to a rational understanding of this problem.
The Siberry working party picked up the subject and reported. It proposed that programming should be shared by the BBC and HTV on one channel, and
Once the channel had opened, the existing services should cease to include programmes in Welsh".
They did not believe that they should be able to finance the capital expenditure without a subsidy. Early in 1976, the then Government had to postpone the implementation of those plans owing to the economic circumstances at that time.


Fortunately, that got that Government off the hook for the rest of their life, because they were able to await the outcome of the Annan committee. That is the classic way of evading a financial commitment—by appointing a committee.
Finally, we come to the Annan recommendations themselves. They are not quite as clear-cut as we might gather from some of the speeches that we have heard in this debate. I extract the key sentences:
We recommend that the proposals of the Siberry Working Party should be implemented sa soon as the Government can find the necessary finance. We put this second in priority only to the extension of the UHF television and VHF radio coverage. The transmission of programmes in Welsh provided by the BBC and HTV would continue to have priority in the scheduling, but the service could include the Open University programmes".
Annan becomes rather vague here. There was certainly no talk of any exclusive channel for the Welsh language. I also draw particular attention to these sentences, which get far too little attention.
Meanwhile, a committee, composed of representatives of BBC Wales, the IBA and HTV, should co-ordinate programmes on the channel in Wales. The Siberry Working Party envisaged that there would be no programmes in Welsh on the other television services; but we "—
this is, Annan—
would regret it if all Welsh language programmes were banished to the fourth channel and we think it would be worse for the Welsh language and the heritage of Wales.
That is contained in Annan, yet we hear very little of that quotation.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic behind those words is that the Welsh language should not be banished from BBC1 and HTV? However, the Government's proposal does exactly that, and we get the worst of both worlds out of it.

Mr. Hooson: If we are talking about the worst of all worlds, there is nothing to compare with creating the ghetto of a single channel, whereas clearly we are here talking about two channels. May I put six disagreeable and factual points to the opponents of this measure.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I do not want to take up too much time. I wish to put these factual points. The first is—

Mr. Whitehead: We can rehearse these arguments from Standing Committee, but the hon. Gentleman knows that what Annan warned against in the passage that he has just quoted was the attempt at dumping all Welsh programming on to one channel for all time. It was not intended to stand in the way of the legitimate desire of the Welsh-speaking people to have a channel that would be predominantly Welsh.

Mr. Hooson: The point of fundamental importance is the number of hours of Welsh television which are available during a week. If we can make those hours available in such a way that programmes reach a larger rather than a smaller audience that is worth even more. Let me sum up what I regard as six good factual points that have received too little attention in this debate.
First, the Welsh language at present gets 13 hours transmission time a week on television. This proposal will increase that to a minimum of 20 hours. A range of 20 hours to 22 hours has been mentioned. That is not a second less than in any other plan that has been discussed.
I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about what I believe will be a considerable improvement in the machinery of co-ordination between the two channels which I think can mean a considerable improvement on our regional thinking. That improvement ensures that there will be no conflict about Welsh programmes appearing on two channels at the same time. It will also be possible to make sure that the two channels mesh in to the maximum effect. That is good news from my right hon. Friend.
Secondly, I wonder why Opposition Members are so worried about switching. English television viewers are constantly switching among three channels. There is nothing unspeakable about switching. We spend our days switching things on and off and we switch to even more channels on radio. There is really nothing to get excited about in switching channels.
Thirdly, we should recognise that we are already doing rather well for the


Welsh language in British television. We started with very little in 1953. Even in 1963 we were averaging four hours a week. There is no minority language in Western Europe which exceeds the time that is presently devoted to Welsh. That is the base upon which we are improving. The nearest one comes to that is the use of Germain in the South Tyrol.
Fourthly, no committee or working party has ever recommended a 100 per cent. Welsh channel and yet—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: On the point about minority languages, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is referring to minority languages which have no other linguistic base outside one territory, or is he talking about cross-border minority languages which are spoken over the border in another major territory?

Mr. Hooson: If we were to refer to cross-border languages we would have to say that the case of Dutch, which is virtually the same language as Flemish, would have to be cited. But, in relation to a minority language within a nation my statement is accurate. There are only two languages which get a substantial amount of television time. They are German in the South Tyrol and the Welsh language in this country. Both receive between 13 and 14 hours a week. No other minority language gets more than three hours a week. In the case of Belgium I regard Flemish and French as not being minority languages—there is very much a balance there. In any case, we are not dealing with the problems of Belgium and this is a peripheral point of my own.
No commission at any point recommended the 100 per cent. devotion of a channel to the Welsh language. The OBA proposal allowed for 50 hours of national transmission. Quite clearly 20 hours in Welsh would have comprised 40 per cent. of its channel time. I cannot believe that 1.000 people would refuse to pay their licence fees in Wales unless there was the feeling that Wales was being deprived of something like a 100 per cent. Welsh language channel. Nobody has ever proposed that. That is exactly what I mean when I say that there has been more emotion than fact surrounding this issue.
Fifthly, there has been talk—we heard it today from the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—of the existence of

a consensus that has been broken by the Conservative Party. That consensus is a myth.

Mr. Alec Jones: Nonsense.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: Not even the Government Front Bench would argue that.

Mr. Hooson: Perhaps I may draw on the record of, first, the IBA evidence to the Annan committee, in which it said:
While the shedding of responsibility for Welsh programmes might be financially advantageous to independent television, the Authority believes that, together with its programme contractor for Wales, it had a commitment to all Welsh viewers that it should not avoid. In its view, a separate Welsh channel would not provide the best solution and it does not believe that it would be in the best interests of the Welsh language itself to be cut off from the mainstream of broadcasting in this way with consequent limitations both on audience size and on production resources.
I have already referred to Annan's statement that it would be a matter of regret if all the language were banished to the fourth channel.
Finally, I draw out a further very important piece of evidence, which is that the Home Office working party report of 1978—in the preparation of which the IBA, HTV and the BBC were involved—indicated a set of options which would be followed in the event that the future use of the fourth channel would be by an IBA service. This is most important, because one must remember that there had been no decision about the national context when these Welsh plans were being suggested. The working party report said:
in the interests of all Viewers in Wales, the BBC and HTV Wales should accommodate the Welsh language elements of their own output on their own services.
So in fact, in the contingency which proved to be the event, the administration of the channel by the IBA, the actual recommendation of the IBA was that the two channels should be run by the two different organisations and that the language should be split between them. So there is a considerable and rational basis for the Government's arriving at this policy.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Hooson: I have given way a great deal, and I am conscious that I am taking up time.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not agree that there was a consensus, although most of us feel that there was a consensus among all parties. There was a debate on the White Paper of 1978, which said:
The Government considers that once the service begins, Welsh language television broadcasting should be concentrated on the fourth channel.
If there was no consensus, why was it that the then Conservative Opposition did not divide against that White Paper?

Mr. Hooson: It is very easy for us to be wise after the event. The truth is that there was not a single party in this House that looked forward with sufficient vision—I am sorry that we Conservatives did not do so—to what would happen when we arrived at the situation in which there was to be a national programme on the fourth channel. I think that this is an area in which the Opposition are still unable to look ahead. When there is a fourth channel nationally, what do they think the 80 per cent. of the people of Wales who speak English and who do not speak Welsh will have to say if they are deprived of a very substantial amount of the programming of that channel? Further, what do Opposition Members expect to hear also from the 20 per cent. who are Welsh speakers? They will miss a good deal of programming in that context.
I promised to make about six factual points. I come to my final point. I am convinced that it is much wiser to put the Welsh language in a context in which those who do not know it well have the chance to become familiar with it as frequently as possible. That is why I abhor the idea of a ghetto.
There are people who are distinguished advocates, and protectors of the Welsh language, who have taken this view. There is a very considerable body of opinion in Wales on the matter. I venture to suspect that it comprises the majority of the Welsh speaking people of Wales—I cannot prove that, but I venture to make that guess—who believe that it is better for the health of the Welsh language that it should be available on more than one television channel.
One of the wisest men who had concern for the Welsh language in this century was the late Jac L. Williams.

He was always worried about the ghetto. At the Plaid Cymru annual conference, the distinguished actor Meredith Edwards urged his own party that it was wise to go for a multi-channel. Y Faner, a highly distinguished Welsh weekly, takes that view. The Western Mail endorsed the soundness of this policy in its leading article on 30 October. The Government's plans are an improvement on previous plans, although I regret that there was lack of foresight in drawing them up. However, when there are better ideas, they should be brought forward, rather than the Government remaining stuck in the mud with the old ideas.

Mr. Barry Jones: My remarks will be brief. The Opposition understood that the fourth channel was mooted because the Welsh language was greatly at risk. Unless the language receives inspired and urgent aid it will die by the end of the century, or a little after that. It would be folly if our State allowed one of Europe's oldest languages to die. If the language falters further, the cultural way of life that now exists in Wales will be severely undermined.
In my constituency there was disappointment and resentment when it became clear that the Conservatives were to abandon their support for the fourth channel. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) when he summarised his position. He said that on this difficult matter we should aim to be fair to the Welsh-speaking minority and the monoglot English-speaking majority. We should try to save the Welsh language, help it to survive, and aim always to place as few obstacles in its way as possible, in a complicated and sophisticated world.
This is what the Government should do. They are attempting seriously to consider the broadcasting issue. None of us should try to isolate that issue from the broader and more varied problems that face the Welsh nation at this difficult period in its history. From my own knowledge of North Wales, I am thinking particularly of the chronic and rising unemployment and the serious and difficult council house building problems.
In the part of North Wales which I know, there is a rising tide of dissatisfaction with what the Government are doing


in their broader policies, especially their economic policies. If the Government are not prepared to listen carefully to the state of opinion throughout Wales we may have even more difficulties in the decade ahead.
Notwithstanding what appears to the Opposition as an about-turn, which conceivably could be deeply injurious to the prospects of the Welsh language, I believe that the Home Secretary, as a matter of statesmanship, should be considering the wider issues. With the benefit of hindsight, if he has to proceed as he suggests tonight, he may regret that in the years ahead. Even at this very late stage, he must think again.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) on having moved this amendment and the eloquence with which he spoke to it. However, I am not convinced by his arguments. Still less am I persuaded by the uncharacteristically intemperate speech by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells).
The Government were wrong to give the pledge which they gave in their manifesto. The solution which they have now put forward is rational and practical, as my hon. Friend for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) so lucidly explained. The more I listen to this debate the more convinced I am of the rightness, the practicality and the rationality of the Government solution. I am not a bit impressed by arguments about the sanctity of manifestos. God forbid that we should ever get ourselves into a position where a Government have to stick to their manifesto, whatever subsequently transpires.
Still less am I impressed by opinion polls that purport to show that a majority in Wales want all Welsh language programmes concentrated on a single channel. We all know that many of that majority want that so that they can keep their switches permanently disconnected. Still less am I impressed by the antics of arsonist militants, or by those who refuse to pay their television licences. I am still less impressed by the "White Knight" of Welsh politics, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, and his rather absurd heroics.
In the present position it does not help to invoke the sacred name of democracy. If democracy means giving effect to the

will of the majority, there was no better democrat than Adolf Hitler. A more important ingredient in democracy is reconciling the views of the majority with the strongly held views of the minority.
At this stage, I must confess to being in doubt. A policy, however rational, however practical and however sensible is not a reasonable policy if it gives unreasonable offence to reasonable men. A substantial number of reasonable men have, quite mistakenly, taken the idea of the all-Welsh fourth channel as a sacred cow before which they bow down and worship.
I am not urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to change their policies. I am asking them to ponder carefully what has been said in the debate. I know the reasonableness of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I resent some of the accusations made against him earlier in the debate. I know what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has done for the Welsh language—far exceeded anything that was done by his predecessors. I have complete and total confidence in his judgment in this matter. I shall go no further tonight than to urge both my right hon. Friends to consider carefully everything that has been said in the debate from both sides of the House.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and his plea to the Government to reconsider their view. My first point is that the matter might not require any legislative action by the Government. I have before me two texts from the Official Report. On 18 February the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said:
The concentration of programmes on the fourth channel envisaged by the hon. Member for Merioneth is not specifically excluded, though it is somewhat unlikely"—[Official Report, 18 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 108.]
In Committee, the official representative of the Welsh Language Society, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) asked:
Is any collaboration on the fourth channel between BBC and ITA now ruled out, or will it still be possible?
The Minister replied:
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 March 1980; c. 254.]


The position is that there is no need for the Home Secretary, after he has consulted in the way that he has now told us he intends, to come back to the House to make any legislative provision for changes in the Bill to accommodate the proposal in the amendment so clearly and lucidly moved by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan).
The Bill does not lay down more than that there shall be Welsh on channel 4. It does not lay down that it shall all be there and that it shall not be on another channel. It does not lay down the location of the programming. It lays down a legislative obligation that matter in Welsh shall be placed on channel 4.
The Government, in deciding not to concentrate, have taken an executive, funding decision, not a legislative decision. It is important to make clear to the people of Wales that there is no binding commitment on the statute book that broadcasting in Wales shall be organised in one way or another.

Mr. Abse: Would it not be wiser that, rather than the hon. Gentleman stating this categorically he should request the Government Front Bench to reaffirm that it is possible to make changes without legislative change? Does he not think that, instead of affirming it himself, he should make certain that the Under-Secretary of State gives an undertaking to the House that that is the position?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the Under-Secretary heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I was quoting responses given earlier and seeking confirmation that it was still the position.
I should like to respond to some of the remarks made by Conservative Members and to make some specific proposals relating to amendment No. 108 which tackle the point made by the Home Secretary that the proposals that we advocate of concentrating Welsh language programmes on channel 4 are insuperably complicated and impossible to administer and fund on a clear basis within the framework of IBA channel 4.
I speak with a past financial interest, having worked part-time freelance for both broadcasting organisations in Wales, and I hope perhaps one day to set myself up as an independent producer. As I see it, and according to the discussions that have taken place between the broadcasting organisations, it is possible organisationally and technically in funding terms to concentrate Welsh language programmes on the fourth channel within the present system.
The evidence quoted by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) from both the Siberry and the Trevelyan Littler working parties has been overtaken by further discussion within BBC Wales and on an informal level between the IBA advisory committee in Wales, BBC Wales and IBA Central. I believe that it is possible to devise a framework in which the proposal to concentrate Welsh language programmes on one channel can be accommodated. We have not had a clear statement from the Home Secretary on the rationale of his change of policy. There has been talk of rationality by Conservative Members. Whenever I hear the word "rationality", I ask: whose rationality? Are we looking at this from the point of view of the rationality of British television or of Welsh television?
My argument with the Government is that they have taken the simplistic view that, having established a United Kingdom framework, it has to be imposed on Wales in a similar form. But the whole rationale of the OBA proposal, which I supported at the time—however, thanks to the policies of the Labour Government on public expenditure that is no longer feasible—was that a specific system for Wales of a popular service, through the medium of Welsh, could be plugged into a United Kingdom framework to provide for independent minority programming, education programmes, and so on. It was the intention to have a Welsh language service, not an attempt to impose—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Cope.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Thomas: There was no attempt to enforce a uniform United Kingdom-wide pattern on Wales. I believe the same to be true here. The Government regard themselves as a Government committed to diversity within the market system. It should be possible for them to accept the argument for cultural diversity as one that will allow Wales to carry out projects slightly differently from the way in which they are carried out in the rest of the United Kingdom. The only argument of substance that has been advanced for the Government's present policy of non-concentration is that there would be a loss of United Kingdom channel 4 programming for English speakers in Wales. That has to be balanced against deprivation of channel 4 IBA programmes to Welsh-speaking people in Wales. That has always been a pro and con debate. We have reached this position on the basis of having seen all the arguments through. The people who have seen this argument through are the broadcasters in Wales who have been messed about by successive Governments, and prevented from creatively developing their talents to serve the Welsh people. The morale of broadcasters in Wales has been severely damaged by successive Governments.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) former Home Secretary in the Labour Administration, for enabling the BBC, through a licence fee settlement, to increase children's programmes. That has now been followed up by the independent contractors. That is the only creative initiative that has been allowed to develop in Welsh language television because of the political structure of broadcasting under successive Governments.
The people who know what is happening and who understand the position are the broadcasters, the broadcasting administrators and the audience of the broadcasting service in Wales, and the point of amendment No. 108 is that they are the people who should make the decisions. A long tradition of United

Kingdom broadcasting has been broken in this Bill. It is the Reithian compromise that was arrived at when the BBC was first established. Hon. Members on the radical Left have their own views about the Reithian compromise and why it was arrived at. We may take the view that the autonomy of broadcasting, even at the end of Liberalism and Labourism, was a myth, but it has always been the view of successive Governments that they should not intervene in scheduling, programming or funding. That is organised by three quasi-autonomous bodies—the BBC, through its charter, the IBA, through legislation in this House, and the contractors to the IBA, through franchises. In the Bill, in the case of broadcasting in Wales, that approach is being severely undermined. There is to be a formal decision by the Government that all programmes in Welsh shall be split between two separate channels.
I support amendment No. 22 but I prefer the option, upon which we cannot vote until later, in amendment No. 108. That transfers the decision on the scheduling and location of programmes from the House back to the broadcasting organisations in Wales so that they can take a decision. The Home Secretary's concession goes part of the way to meeting the case that we advance in amendment No. 108, but it is deficient in one respect. The Home Secretary is taking what he describes as a personal decision, for which he takes personal responsibility. He is saying to the administrators and the democratic representatives on the advisory bodies in Wales "Review my decision after I have taken it and then come back to me and perhaps that decision can be reversed." That is the wrong way to go about it. It is contrary to the quasi-autonomy of broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary should say that our suggestion is a possible solution. He should say that as the Bill makes progress, and as the debate heightens in Wales and there is deep division on the issue, the matter should be decided in Wales by working parties, people involved in the day-to-day administration of broadcasting, representative bodies, and the BBC advisory committee. Such bodies should make the decision. The purpose of amendment No. 108 is to


bring them together in a co-ordinating committee—Cyngor Cyd-drefnu Darlledu.
It is significant that both bids for the franchise of the independent contractor in Wales contain a clear reference to the need to co-ordinate the production and planning of programmes by BBC Wales, the independent contractor and the personnel of the IBA subsidiary board. The need to co-ordinate has been accepted by broadcasting opinion in Wales.
This is not an argument that has suddenly reached a conclusion. The people dealing with the matter have worked it through at great length for 10 years. Before the Home Secretary arrived at his desk, Welsh broadcasters had worked through the issue. They should be able to carry out specific decisions to enable us to have a service that benefits both communities.
I apologise for going on at length, but I was not a member of the Committee and the issues must be raised now. The Home Secretary did not say how and in what way his proposals are cheaper than the alternative proposal of concentrating programmes on channel 4. Only a couple of thousand pounds here or there in a week of television is involved. I am not talking about the OBA proposal, which involves public expenditure.
I am talking about present funding arrangements. The fourth channel will be paid by advertising. It is said that in the short term—although I believe that it will be in the medium or long term—it will be paid for to some extent by the negative levy. The funding from programme contractors will be recycled to fund the fourth channel. That is a negative form of public expenditure.
It is clear that Welsh language programmes will be paid for by advertising revenue that is derived from the whole IBA network. In effect, that advertising revenue will be a "subsidy". Some advertising will be placed in spots or in blocks around Welsh language programmes. Because of the size of the audience, the advertising potential of Welsh language programmes will be minimal. The amount of advertising revenue generated by such programmes is limited. The major funding base will therefore be a cross-subsidisation of the

whole IBA system into Welsh language programmes.
The other area of funding involves the BBC's extension of output, which will be funded by the licence fee. That will be a major item in the next licence fee settlement. It represents a form of public expenditure, because the money is derived from the public. As I have not yet paid for a licence for the current year, I declare a financial interest. Why will the concentration of programmes on the fourth channel be more expensive than the present solution? The only loss of revenue to commercial contractors or to television in general would arise from the possible displacement of advertising revenue if a block of BBC Welsh language programmes were to be screened on the fourth channel.
Obviously, I cannot speak for BBC Wales. Other people are appointed and qualified to do so. The BBC has made public statements, and the Broadcasting Council has also said that the BBC is still willing to co-operate in placing Welsh language programmes on the fourth channel. However, that is a matter for detailed negotiation between the BBC and the IBA.
I have discussed one possibility informally with senior people in BBC Wales. It might be possible to place a block of Welsh language programmes on the fourth channel on alternate days. It would be difficult to slot in BBC programmes on an individual basis, interspersed with advertising. However, it would be possible to consider three-hour blocks of BBC programmes. Displaced adversing might then form a block that could be screened either before or after those programmes.
The programmes could be varied on a weekly basis. It might be possible to screen them on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday afternoons one week, and on the other days in the following week. I do not say that that suggestion is novel or brilliant, but that is one way in which the BBC could screen programmes on that channel.
There would be revenue implications for the commercial contractor who was selling the advertising, but those implications would be minimal. The amount of advertising derived from Welsh language programmes would be limited. In any


case, displaced advertising could be blocked elsewhere. The problem that arises is the rescheduling on that channel and the loss for that channel of channel 4 United Kingdom output. That must be balanced against the benefit of having a concentrated service.
10.15 pm
The debate so far has tended to be about Welsh language programmes. The point has been made that the number of programmes will be the same, however they are organised. That is a rather simplistic view. Television is not so much about programmes as about programme flow. When one produces a service one gets a comprehensive flow. The problem with splitting the channels is that the flow of the service is interrupted. The balance of the service and its comprehensive nature are also interrupted.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his concept of flow on television channels. Does he agree that a greater number of Welsh people will therefore see a number of Welsh programmes when the flow is on two channels rather than on one?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, but, conversely, a greater proportion of people will decide not to have their aerials tuned towards that flow because from their point of view their own linguistic flow is interrupted by interspersing Welsh language programmes with English ones. That is the whole argument—that on Deeside, in Newport and in Swansea people will beam their aerials outside Wales so that they can get an uninterrupted flow. We have had this argument before.
It is still possible, in the context of the present IBA system, to have the channel 4 solution. It is not difficult or administratively complex. All it needs is for the co-ordinating machinery that has been working so hard—the people who have been talking these things through in working parties for years, and the people who have the expertise, knowledge and sensitivity of the needs of Wales to see this matter through—to come to terms with each other and particularly with the new input from independent producers. These programme makers can come together to provide a com

prehensive service that will meet the needs of Wales.
I urge the Home Secretary not to destroy that possibility tonight. He has already made a concession. In my view, it is a concession that goes about things the wrong way. The right hon. Gentleman is saying "I must make a decision, and then you can review it." Instead, he should be saying that the decision is best made in Wales by those who will run the broadcasting system and by the viewers of Wales themselves.

Mr. Ifor Davies: I welcome the opportunity to intervene in this debate. I am glad to support the amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan). I believe that the amendment concerns the very survival of the Welsh language.
The hon. and learned Member said that the question was what was best for the language. It is to that question that I address my remarks. This is the very point of the amendment. In his opening remarks the Home Secretary acknowledged that he had changed his mind. I hope that by the end of the debate he will be prepared to change it again.
Broadcasting, and particularly television, is a live issue in Wales. It is more passionately debated there than perhaps elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Few issues have been debated more deeply and at such length by the broadcasting authorities, and the long list was given to us by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh—the committees, commissions and working parties.
The situation is complex, and can too easily be oversimplified. I agree with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that an unreasonable offence has been caused to reasonable people. The real issue is that the Welsh language is fighting for survival. I concede that there is no guarantee that a fourth channel will save it. However, rightly or wrongly, a strong body of Welsh opinion from all walks of life and of all shades of political view, sincerely believes that the fourth channel would be a powerful aid to safeguard and encourage the use of the Welsh language, because of the great influence of television. It would give the language greater status and recognition. The Government once believed that. They have not given us


satisfactory reasons why they have changed their minds.
The issue is vital, because Welsh is a living language and an integral part of the make-up of a national community. It is the cornerstone of our national identity. The salvation of the language rests on the Welsh people, who must speak the language and increase educational facilities. However, the fact that the language is spoken only by a minority of the people of Wales should not hide the fact that the great majority of non-Welsh speaking Welshmen are equally concerned with its survival. That is proved beyond doubt by the enthusiastic support given by non-Welsh speaking people to our annual festival, the National Eisteddfod. The amendment does not envisage that the entire fourth channel should be taken up by Welsh language programmes. I cannot, therefore, accept the argument that non-Welsh speakers would not benefit from the fourth channel. In any case, there are many other channels serving non-Welsh speaking people.
Fears have been expressed that the proposal will place the language in a ghetto. The risk is worth taking to avoid the opposition of non-Welsh-speaking Welshmen, who need to be persuaded and not compelled, as they are now, to listen to Welsh programmes on various channels.
I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider the situation in the interests of the language and to take note of the degree of unanimity among the Welsh people. I am convinced that great volume of opinion cannot be mistaken. The issue deserves respect and reconsideration by the Government.

Mr. Rowlands: I plead with the Government to reconsider their position. It is rare for something of a political consensus to be achieved in Wales, as the House will recognise. It will be a grave decision to go against that consensus for only marginal reasons. It is sad that the Home Secretary is not here to hear our plea, although he has been in the Chamber for most of the debate.
I should like to make a personal appeal to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales. Certain aspects of life are intangible. They cannot be quan

tified. If such things are messed about or blundered into by decisions that do not respond to the political feel of the community, the consequences can be grave. That has been the message from hon. Members on both sides. It was touched on by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) when he said that many reasonable men have come to a decision, even though he believes it to be mistaken.
I live in and represent a constituency where the language is a minority language. I have successfully brought up young children to be bilingual, but it was difficult to do so. As I recognised in my constituency, it is sad and tragic that the language is not only enriching but potentially divisive.
We have seen that division occur in the three most sensitive areas that touch Welsh people, as they touch any other community—education, broadcasting and jobs. There is a tremendous sympathy for the attempts to save the Welsh language, and it extends far beyond those who speak it or aspire to do so, but there is also a great sense of alienation created among many who do not speak it and will never come to grips with learning the language if they sense that it is being thrust down their throats or that others are gaining special advantage by being bilingual. They will resent the language and tend to reject it.
Those twin emotions of sympathy and alienation are a delicate and sensitive part of the politics of dealing with the Welsh language in a community such as Merthyr Tydvil. I have sensed it in the argument about bilingual schools, education, school bussing, and so on. Sympathy and alienation rise quickly to the surface.
However, it is in broadcasting that those emotions rise fastest to the surface. That is why so many hon. Members have spoken so passionately about the issue. When a person goes home from work, perhaps late at night, turns on his television set and is trapped by a Welsh language programme that he does not understand, and sees what the alternative would be if there were an option, he feels a sense of resentment and, as many hon. Members will testify, he will telephone or write to his local Member of Parliament.
It was because of the combination of sympathy and the way in which the language can alienate and divide our society that a political consensus emerged. There was no point in the hon. Member for Brecon and. Radnor (Mr. Hooson) reading out chunks of the Annan report. The Conservative Party went through all the arguments—the ghetto argument and the rest—as did the Labour Party. Every major party concluded, after agonising over the arguments and discussing the issues, that the best way to defuse a difficult situation, in which emotions were strong, was to put the language on one channel. That political conclusion was arrived at separately by the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Party. Many individuals in each party disputed the decision, but all the parties came to the same conclusion.
A political consensus emerged on a sensitive and emotional issue which was as capable of dividing as enhancing the sense of community and the willingness of the majority to promote the language, even though they did not speak it. Here lay the answer. In broadcasting—a most sensitive area—we could have removed the potential for conflict, alienation and divisions over the language through the argreement and consensus on policy that emerged from all the major parties.
The point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House is that the Government have blundered badly in alienating and destroying the consensus achieved by each of the political parties. That destruction has reopened a major area of conflict and division on language. I feel passionately and angrily about that, because many of us represent constituencies which now have only a small minority of Welsh speakers. Having had to work hard to achieve a delicate balance, we now see the issue being thrust back into an area of alienation and anger that could stretch beyond the normal confines of political debate.
10.30 pm
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) said, none of us support the nonsense of hunger fasting. We do not support any of the extra-parliamentary and extra-legal actions of Cymdeithasy Iath, or for that matter, the actions of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for

Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who announced a few minutes ago—and the Home Secretary blandly sat there and took not the slightest notice—that they were breaking the law by not paying their licence fees. [HON. MEMBERS. "Shame."] I think that that is a shame, and I oppose it most bitterly.
I think as I do because of all the decent, honourable people who do not break the law and who have tried to advance their arguments through the normal political processes. The hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) shared my view and put it eloquently in opening the debate. Those good people had come to the conclusion that we had reached a solution through consensus. That solution has now been destroyed by the Government.
We plead with the Government to rethink their decision and review the issue.

Mr. Keith Best: ; I am grateful for being called, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am mindful that you and hon. Members think that I have been guilty of a grave discourtesy to the House for not having sat through the lion's share of the debate. I think it right that I should explain why I was not here.
Unfortunately, as I hope all hon. Members will understand, the demands on the time of an hon. Member in this place are now so great that we must frequently try to be in several places at one time. I do not labour the issue on this occasion, but I was serving on the Finance Bill Standing Committee today and unfortunately, as this debate reached the Floor of the House. I was moving an amendment in that Committee. I therefore crave the indulgence of all hon. Members. I ask for that indulgence on the basis that I do not intend to delay the House for long. [HON. MEMBERS. "Hear, hear."] In view of the murmurings from Opposition Members I hope that I shall receive equally suitable and significant encouragement from them as a result of what I say.
The vexed question of the fourth channel goes to the heart of the emotions of the people of Wales. I think that I am entitled to say that as an Englishman who can, perhaps, look at the issue in a different way from other people. The concept of the fourth channel goes to


the issue of the survival of the Welsh language, what is being done to ensure its survival, and whether it will in fact survive.
I noted with sadness the pessimistic views of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). I do not share those views. I think that the prospects for the language are optimistic, not pessimistic. But it also goes to the heart of the people of Wales because it is, I believe, an expression of national identity. I do not think that it is particularly helpful tonight to talk about certain extramural pressures. They were advanced adequately a moment ago by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands). Certainly it is sad that one person who has held a considerable degree of respect in Wales as a senior politician should have taken a course of action that can only be calculated, from a rational point of view, to have made a change of view by the Government impossible. No Government, it must be realised, could possibly succumb to that sort of pressure.
I hope that those who advise that venerable gentleman will convey that message to him, if he does not know it already. His action, if he continues it in the way in which he has threatened so to do, will effectively close the door on anything. He will be doing a grave disservice rather than a service to the people of Wales by the nature of his action. It would assuredly open the floodgates to all sorts of other pressures of a similar nature, and no Government could bend with that sort of precedent behind them.

Mr. Abse: Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman—I say this not, I hope, in a patronising way—that I have lived through a period in which Governments have been changed as a result of men fasting. Those of us who remember India and the determination of Gandhi do not necessarily dismiss action of this kind as nonsense. The hon. Gentleman may be speaking a little too precipitately. The issue is serious. Although I do not condone what is happening, it should not be imagined that it is unimportant as a symptom of what is happening in Wales.

Mr. Best: If the hon. Member had been listening to what I said he would have realised that in no measure did I say that it was an important factor.

The fact that I mentioned it at the beginning of my speech should have been a clear indication to the hon. Member of the importance with which I feel that this House should view such an action—not least because it is fundamentally contrary to the whole concept of parliamentary democracy. I am sure that that is something on which the hon. Member and I are ad idem. I am sure that he would agree with me that no Government could possibly succumb exclusively to the sort of threat that has been manifested recently by that sort of action.
In passing, I should like to say that it profits us little in this House to try to make cheap party political points on the question of the language and the fourth channel. Certainly I am satisfied that what my right hon. Friend has been doing in Wales for the language is unprecedented in its measure of support. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know exactly what I am talking about. One realises that there is the extra £1½million, and that for the first time in an Education Act one has specific provision for extra costs involved in bilingual teaching—never achieved before. There is also the matter that is very close to my heart—a project such as Nant Gwrtheyrn, where people will be able to go, in a holiday atmosphere, and learn the language.
These things will do far more for the survival of the language than any polemics that may be expressed here and any fighting over whether all Welsh language programmes go out on one channel or on two.
Also, I think that it profits us nothing to try to make points on the basis of manifesto politics. I do not wish to be accused of any digression, but with our present electoral system it is extremely difficult for any political party that forms the Government to claim much credence on the basis of the manifesto. Certainly I do not subscribe to the manifesto mandate. I suspect that Opposition Members are only too cognisant of recent history and the sort of damage that the idea of manifesto politics can bring to a political party.
One always has to view a situation within the current circumstances. Of course, that must mean that people change their minds and that Governments change their minds. I regard that as a source of


strength, not weakness. I hope that hon. Members will accept that.
I represent a constituency in which a substantial number of people speak Welsh. I adopted a disinterested attitude in this debate, although initially I fully supported the Government line. The Opposition, who may be less charittable than those to whom I referred, may say that I have adopted the painful posture of sitting on the fence. That is one way of describing it. However, I do not feel deeply, one way or the other, about the idea of the Welsh language programmes being on one channel or on two. I have the utmost respect for those who do, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and others who are signatories to the amendment.
I urge upon the House the point that this amendment closes the door. It gives no latitude whatsoever for any further development. That may have been a matter within the cognisance of the hon. Member who moved the amendment, or it may not. I urge hon. Members to consider the provisions of the Bill unamended. The door is left open. Clause 3(5)(a) says:
it shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that the programmes broadcast in the Fourth Channel Service for reception in Wales contain a suitable proportion of matter in Welsh
without any specification of what "a suitable proportion" might be. That is indeed encouraging to myself. It leaves the door open for an extension of Welsh language programmes in the contemplation of the Bill as it stands.
Although I was not in the Chamber to hear him, I know of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I welcome them. They have made a significant advance in lending succour to those who do not want to see the door slammed shut on the whole question of the fourth channel but who want to see a flexible response, in the light of prevailing circumstances at the time, and, perhaps most important of all, in the light of the prevailing opinion of the people of Wales.
We must consider the question on these two criteria: first, what do the people of Wales want, and, secondly, what will be best for the Welsh language? I shall not go into great detail about the second of those points. Ultimately, that must be a

matter of faith. The arguments are probably equally balanced, whether two channels or one put out Welsh language programmes.
As to what the people of Wales want, hon. Members may know that I have invited a lot of response on this question. I received petitions containing nearly 1,000 names. My right hon. Friend knows that, because they were sent on to him. I have also received nearly 100 letters, all of them advocating that all Welsh language programmes should be on the fourth channel. Although they certainly represent a great strength of feeling, do they represent the wishes of the majority of the people of Wales? If they do not, how does one gauge it? It is very difficult to ascertain that.
Certainly, from my discussions with people in Wales, I find that if they want all the Welsh language programmes on one channel they do so for one of two reasons. There are those who adopt the ghetto argument and who want all Welsh programmes on one channel, so that they need never turn it on. One does not know whether those people would actually resent having access to a fourth channel denied them whereas if they lived in another part of the United Kingdom they would have access to the four channels. The other, more important question is: why should all the Welsh language programmes be on one channel? In a large measure, those who advocate that want a comprehensive Welsh television service. That is something with which I have great sympathy, and that is why I shall support the Government tonight.
10.45 pm
What my right hon. Friend said tonight—it is a different view from that expressed previously—opens the way to a continuing review of the promulgation of Welsh language programmes on television. It opens the way to a comprehensive Welsh service that will encompass not only Welsh language programmes but programmes in English about Wales. I am convinced that that is what concerns the majority of people in Wales. That is what will satisfy the fears about the Welsh language and the fears about the concept of national identity. That is what I shall look forward to in the years to come.

Dr. Roger Thomas: When the Home Secretary spoke at Cambridge I thought that in his speech—which I regard as famous but which many people in Wales regard as infamous, he at least gave the people of Wales another opportunity to reconsider the issue of putting all Welsh programmes on one channel. One result of his announcement was the ending of the expectation of a single Welsh channel attempting to compete with—and inevitably lose—wellknown, occasionally well-made, and popular English language programmes on two major channels and one minority channel.
I have to admit that that one-sided and unfair battle by and for Welsh-speaking viewers has been at the root of my apprehensions and misgivings over the years. On that point, no one can accuse me of being inconsistent. Welsh would become a ghetto language. In the end, all the sincere efforts of the Welsh language zealots for the fourth channel would be found to have been utterly and totally counter-productive. Over the years the matter has been discussed—sometimes rationally, but often irrationally—within Welsh-speaking communities. Among those anxious to avoid the establishment of conditions that would isolate and insulate the Welsh language was a Welsh nationalist, scholar, patriot, and a person as dedicated to the cause of Wales and its language as anyone who has had the privilege of representing Wales at Westminster. I am referring to the late Professor Jac Williams of Aberystwyth, who firmly believed and brilliantly argued that the confining of Welsh to one channel would serve only to weaken and then to help the language towards its ultimate demise.
Opening the debate on Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised to ensure that the Government honoured their pledge to increase reasonably soon the number of hours of Welsh broadcasts, to add further to the development of independent television, and to utilise one of the two channels already run by the BBC to transmit increased output in the Welsh language. When the fourth channel is fully operational, there will be 12 hours in place of the present seven. In addition, the BBC will transmit an approximately equal output, giving about 20 to 22 hours, which is approximately the total number of hours for which the fourth channel

champions have been working, and which they have latterly been demanding, by all manner and means.
The Government have decided to confine half of the Welsh language channel output to the fourth channel, with the BBC complementing that on its minority channel coverage. I believe unhesitatingly that the true aim and leading principle when deciding the arrangements for transmitting the Welsh programmes is that as many as possible of the 600,000 who understand and can follow our indigenous language have the opportunity to watch such programmes regularly and in as uncompetitive a manner as possible. It must be admitted that because of a limited budget Welsh programmes lack in resource and genuine interest.
It is sad that far too many fluent Welsh speakers, who are articulate, probably well-meaning and over-academic, have long forgotten that the majority of the 600,000 who do not have their linguistic prowess or unfettered dedication to the language are denied the optimum opportunity of enjoying Welsh on the square screen in their homes.
We must protect and project our language, which, despite hundreds of new learners, is being spoken less and less by fewer people. The presentation of Welsh language programmes must be simple and comprehensible. With our present limited hours and means that is not being done, by any stretch of the imagination.
The Welsh Language Society speaks of creative and responsible television. The Crawford report spoke in different terms. It talked of ensuring that Welsh language programmes were cohesive and attractive to maximise the audience and to serve a social as well as a cultural aim. The Siberry report has been quoted often. It said that Welsh language programmes must be comparable to English programmes in mix. The true meaning of that is that Welsh programmes must not be too ambitious, lest the ordinary viewer loses interest and turns to other channels for entertainment. Too many Welsh speakers will do that, too easily. That will be the test. As a result, an increasingly small minority of Welsh speakers will remain faithful to the Welsh language programmes—and they will be the academics. That is certain to happen if Welsh is isolated on a single channel.
We must ensure that the fourth channel does not develop into a retreat or haven for Welsh intellectuals—a select minority—so that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Welsh speakers have the impression that programmes are outside their accomplishments.

Mr. Abse: I was beginning to wonder why I had not been called.
The argument that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) so fluently presented is one which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) said, has been heard in every political party in Wales at some time in the past four to six years.
When I began to argue the case for the necessity—if we are to heal the differences between the Welsh and English-speaking Welshmen—of having Welsh programmes decanted to a separate programme, arguments such as that expressed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon were made vigorously. I am aware that because I argued in favour of that, great anguish was caused inside Plaid Cymru, because it was assumed that there must be a catch in it.
It became clear that in all the parties there was a majority who believed in the solution set out in the Conservative manifesto. People reached that conclusion because they saw it was a way of preventing the estrangement that existed in Wales. In my constituency, where, unhappily, so few people speak Welsh, the fact that Welsh programmes are sandwiched between English-speaking programmes gives rise to an irrational antagonism that must cause distress to anyone who realises that one of the oldest languages in Europe is in danger of decline.
It would be absurd to pretend that whether two programmes or one are broadcast in Welsh, the Welsh language will be saved. That is the hope, not the certainty. It is clear, however, that a consensus was reached. No one can dispute it. It is valueless to pretend otherwise. It was reached painfully, after literally years of debate. A remarkable unanimity was eventually reached, and therefore the betrayal of Wales has taken place as a result of the insouciant suggestions that were thrown out from Cambridge, of all places. What extraordinary insensitivity to make a declara

tion there on a matter about which the Welsh feel so passionately. I am not an anti-Cambridge man, but the issue was dealt with in such a perfunctory manner that Wales was affronted that it should have been dealt with so suddenly and unexpectedly, without any consultation.

Mr. John Morris: I am pleased to hear the assurance of my hon. Friend that he is not anti-Cambridge. Not only was the speech made at Cambridge by the Home Secretary; the Welsh Office had no response to it whatever on that day.

Mr. Abse: The astonishment was felt not only in Wales; it was probably felt in the Welsh Office, too. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to underline that. Wales picked up the message and believed, rightly or wrongly, that there would be an imposed solution, in which Welsh interests or Welsh feelings would not be taken into account, and it believed that something brutal and highly provocative had taken place.
I say to the Home Secretary, who has courteously been present throughout almost all the debate, that some hon. Members fought hard to ensure that we retained a unitary State. We believed that there would be grave dangers within the constitution if changes on devolution came about. We fought because we told the people of Wales that Westminster was a place in which the voice of Wales could be effectively heard. We fought because we believed that here in Westminster there was sensitivity, understanding and insight about Wales, and that Welsh Members were able to speak to their English colleagues and were able to tease out of them the sympathy that was required in order that Welsh problems should have proper attention.
Is it surprising, after a fierce debate in which some Welsh Members exposed themselves severely, politically, in order to maintain that view that we feel bitter that a justification should suddenly be provided for the cynicism that was expressed continually during those years of campaign over devolution—a cynicism about this place? Manifesto pledges may not be sacred. They sometimes have to yield to circumstances. But when it was believed that there was unanimity, and when a pledge was given, the breach of


that pledge for what appears to be marginally persuasive reasons breeds in Wales a cynicism about Westminster.
11 pm
We are concerned about the law and respect for the law in Wales. For the first time, formerly reasonable men are suddenly taking unlawful action. Gwynfor Evans's intentions are not to be disregarded. I do not share the view that they are nonsense. I believe that they are a symptom of the lack of belief and confidence that Westminster can provide an answer. When people turn to extra-parliamentary demonstrations it means that they feel that Parliament has failed. Nothing makes them feel that more than if they see politicians whom they normally regard with respect and concern appearing to be so cynical that within a matter of months they can tear up pledges that had a deep meaning throughout Wales. Of course we are getting people who refuse to pay their licences.
Some of us took a stand as soon as places were being burnt down in protest. We tried to reaffirm the rule of law. The Home Secretary has a personal responsibility. There are those of us who stand up for the unitary State and try to teach respect for the rule of law. There are those of us who say that within the constitution as it stands there is a proper place in which they can shape and alter opinion in Westminster. The Home Secretary has a particular responsibility to see that we are not left out.
When the fast begins and the disorder spreads the Home Secretary will regret very much not taking preventive action. I listened with care to his statement that he is ready to take advice and have an annual report. Before we conclude tonight we need from the Under-Secretary clear confirmation that it will still be possible, within the existing law, for the Welsh programme to go out on one channel if there are second thoughts. As English-speaking Welshmen, my constituents are weary of the existing position. They are prepared to give up some of the alleged benefits of the fourth channel in order to have their programmes as they want them and in order to help to make a contribution to the saving of the Welsh language. The Home Secretary is making a blunder. It does not become

him. Whatever view we may have of him, and whatever we may think of his policies, he has a reputation as a man of honour. He is besmirching that reputation, he is estranging Wales, and he is doing a grave disservice to the rule of law in this country.

Mr. Alan Williams: I hope that in winding up the debate the Under-Secretary will answer the question put by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), whether the Home Secretary's proposal this evening requires legislation. If it does require legislation, I hope that he will indicate whether it will be included in the proceedings on this Bill.
The reason why we are so embittered in this debate tonight is that the single channel for the Welsh language has been favoured by the Crawford committee, the Annan committee, the universities of Wales, the University court, the Churches, the Labour Party in Wales, the Liberal Party in Wales, Plaid Cymru, and, until 4 May last year, the Tory Party in Wales.
HTV sent us a document in which it was admitted that the output of Welsh language programmes would double, but it pointed out that not all programmes would be on one channel. Later, the document stated:
Programmes not only create audiences, they also inherit them from preceding programmes … Many people show a loyalty to one channel more than another. These habits are known to broadcasters everywhere.
HTV is saying that there may be double the number of programmes, but people will watch only half of them.

Mr. Hanson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that he is supporting my argument? He is demonstrating that more people will be exposed to Welsh language programmes if there are two channels.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the way in which aerials have been turned in Wales. As a result of the assesssment on splitting the language, we believe in a single integrated programme. We believe that that is better for the language, that it is more likely to lead to a balanced programme, and that it will avoid duplication.
It is appalling that there has been so little plausible explanation of the


Government's proposal. In February, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
I changed my mind, and I make no apology for that."—[Official Report, 4 February 1980; Vol. 977, c. 51.]
Not only has he not made an apology tonight; he has not even offered an explanation. I am shocked that a Secretary of State for Wales should have to hide behind the greater weight of the Home Secretary. I am even more appalled that he should have to sit on the Front Bench while the Under-Secretary of State winds up the debate. He shares equal Cabinet responsibility for the decisions under discussion. It is astonishing that he should put up his big brother to fight for him and put his little sister out to cry for him.
Throughout the election campaign and until 3 May the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of a single channel. However, the position had changed by the time of the Queen's Speech. The Home Secretary earlier said that he had never believed in rigid adherence to a manifesto. Once we saw the Bill, none of us thought that he believed in that. Adherence to non-adherence is one thing, but 12 days must be a record. There was only 12 days between winning the election and reneging on that commitment. Those of us who have been in government know that it was not 12 days. The Queen's Speech was almost certainly written within five days of coming into office. No doubt it was then circulated round the Department. A manifesto may not be sacrosanct, but if it is valid only for five days it is not even relevant. What happened in those five or six days?

Mr. Whitelaw: I made clear my position. Of course, the Queen's Speech did not rule out the manifesto commitment. It made plain that both options were open.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman wants it all ways. Earlier he protested that the Queen's Speech made his proposals clear, but he now claims that it did nothing of the sort.—[Interruption.]
Good heavens, the Secretary of State for Wales has got a voice. He has to sit down to use it, because he is not taking part in the debate. He is trying to shout from a sedentary position, because he is not man enough to stand here and defend his policies. As long ago as 1972 Lord

Harlech explained the arguments against the single channel. Where was the Secretary of State during the seven years between 1972 and 1979? Did he not have discussions with anyone when he was in opposition? What arguments did he hear in those five days that he had not heard before? We have heard nothing new from the Home Secretary, and nothing that convinces us.
On an earlier occasion the Secretary of State said that it had become clear to him that the consensus would disappear. By what process? How did the vision arrive, and what form did it take?
Various of my hon. Friends have said that while often disagreeing with the Home Secretary we have always regarded him as an honourable man. It has been embarrassing to watch him wriggling tonight. He knows that what he is doing is wrong. Does he believe in his heart that it is honourable not only to refuse to do that for which his Government had a clear mandate but actually to do the opposite? There is also the nauseating spectacle of Tories who won marginal, Welsh-speaking seats on the same manifesto and are now queuing up to speak against it. Do they not realise that that calculated, cynical betrayal not only offends moderate-minded people but feeds the bitterness of the most irresponsible forces in Wales?
The Home Secretary has tried to bring forward what he sees as a compromise. I assure him that the formula that he has put forward guarantees that the argument will be prolonged year after year. He has ensured that there will be campaigns against this new channel when it is set up.
For reasons that he has never explained, the Secretary of State has said that he believes that the consensus will not last. Let him put it to the test. In Wales we have a well-established method. When there are issues affecting the Welsh way of life, we put them to the people. We do that with regard to licensing laws and entertainment on the Welsh Sunday.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): And devolution.

Mr. Williams: Yes, we lost, but we put the issue of devolution to the Welsh people. We let the people of Wales make up their own minds. The right hon. Gentleman should not sneer about that.


If he is happy with the results of that referendum, as no doubt he is, he should let the people of Wales choose again. Let him be man enough at least to do that.

Mr. Best: Why is the right hon. Gentleman distressed that the argument may continue beyond tonight? I charitably assume that what he is saying is sensible. The purport of what he is saying is that the people of Wales should be constantly consulted and that changes should come about in the light of prevailing circumstances. Is he so utterly inflexible that he wants a decision to be taken once and for all, and never changed?

Mr. Williams: I have been accused of many things. Inflexibility is rarely one of them. I have offered a formula that gives a chance to end the argument. Let the majority of the people of Wales speak. Let us all agree tonight that we shall accept their decision. The Labour Party will stand by it. The Liberal spokesman agrees, and I believe that Plaid Cymru agrees. All we need is for the Conservative Party to agree. The Home Secretary has changed his mind once. Tonight he has half changed it again. I dismiss what he has done tonight as a last-minute, desperate gimmick to buy time. If he wants to experiment, let him experiment on the basis of his party's solemn pledge to the people of Wales. That is the honourable action. If he is still in doubt, let the people of Wales do the deciding for him.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I presume that I may address the House on the amendment after the Minister has spoken.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) did not move amendment No. 21 Had he done so, we should have been discussing an all-Wales channel, transmitting an all-Welsh programme for about 50 hours a week. That would have come as a salutary shock to at least one broadcasting official who is still alive in Wales and who told me 20 years ago that he doubted whether Wales could sustain more than one hour a week of Welsh language television. In other words, we have done very well in Wales for television. That is due in no small part to

the keenness of debates in the House. There is no doubt that this debate has proved extremely keen.
11.15 pm
The Government believe that their present plans to broadcast Welsh language programmes on two channels rather than one offer the better solution for the Welsh speaker and the non-Welsh speaker. If all the Welsh programmes were to be concentrated on the fourth channel, the non-Welsh speaker would be deprived of a substantial part of the new service. Half the programmes would be displaced and it would be very difficult to reschedule all of them. We have not heard much of that deprivation—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I have a great deal to say. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. We have heard nothing about that deprivation because it has not yet occurred, but I urge the House to take cognisance of it.
My personal concern, since I am directly responsible to my right hon. Friend in Welsh language matters, is with the Welsh-speaking viewer. My right hon. Friend, in his recent speech at Llanwrst, outlined what has come to be recognised as the strongly positive if not aggressive policy on behalf of the language. Those who are concerned with the usual channels know that we on the Government Benches are pressing for an early debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on this policy statement.
The exposure of the language on two channels rather than its concentration on one—its exposure to the non-Welsh speaker as well as to the devoted Welsh speaker—as suggested by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), accords well with that policy. So, too, does the production of programmes by the BBC and the IBA, involving two different news and programme sources and direct responsibility, on the part of the two broadcasting organisations, for the transmission of their Welsh language productions. Welsh has parity with English under the Government's arrangements.
Much has been made by our critics of our change of mind on this issue—much more than is warranted. We have not reneged on the Queen's Speech. The relevant section stated:


My Ministers will propose the repeal of the Wales Act 1978. They will give active support to the maintenance of the Welsh language and will seek an early start with Welsh broadcasting on the fourth television channel in Wales."—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, cc. 49–50.]
We have repealed the Wales Act. We shall be spending three times more next year than we did last year on the maintenance of the language. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has ensured that the six transmitters required in Wales for broadcasting the fourth channel programme have been given top priority. Those transmitters will transmit Welsh language programmes.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Roberts: No doubt I shall be referred to the manifesto. We did say that we were anxious to see Welsh broadcasting started on the fourth channel as quickly as possible. Speed was of the essence at the time because of the interminable delay and procrastination by the previous Labour Government.
I should like to read to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) one of his own press notices. This stated:
It is splendid news that the Government is now able to carry out its commitment to finance a Welsh language service on the fourth channel. It was disappointing to all of us who were deeply concerned with the future of the language that we were not able, due to economic circumstances, to do so before …The target date for the service is autumn, 1982.
The date of that pronouncement was July 1978. There was interminable procrastination and delay.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) quoted from our manifesto. At the end of the sentence that he quoted, we said:
We do not favour the setting up of the OBA.
That was our sincere belief at that time, when the fourth channel was empty and waiting to be used. After the election, plans for the start of ITV 2 developed quickly and the problem of deprivation of the non-Welsh speaking viewer raised its head almost immediately. Our Welsh language policy devolped too, and there was a need to fulfil our pledge to give active support to the maintenance of the Welsh language.
We have admitted that there was change. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was fairly generous in Committee when the change was referred to. We concluded, in the new circumstances, that our first priority was to increase the hours of Welsh language broadcasting. After all, that was the basic and most, important commitment. We concluded that the best way to do that was to ensure that the BBC and the IBA increased their hours along the lines outlined in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in Cambridge on 14 September last year.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman quoted from my press statement, but does he believe that his quotation helps his case? Does it not show the careful preparation that the previous Government started? Is not the reality of the situation that the hon. Gentleman and his party have ratted on an election promise and that he knew nothing of it until the Home Secretary made that speech in Cambridge?

Mr. Roberts: I was simply confirming the remarks that we, have heard throughout the debate about the interminable delay on the part of the previous Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of that.
I turn to an important point. The concentration of Welsh language programmes on one channel remains an option for the future. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. I have acknowledged that, as has my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and his friends ought to think about the fact that once that option is exercised, and all Welsh programmes are concentrated on the fourth channel, it is unlikely that the Welsh language will make a comeback on other channels at any time.
I commend the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, in Committee:
If I were an enthusiastic protagonist for the Welsh language I should be anxious for Welsh language programmes not to be confined to a channel of their own but for them to be on channels in which both Welsh and English can be heard … Admittedly T say that as an outsider. but I care and I have tried to understand the arguments and follow what has been said by those who speak in


good faith. I believe that the interest of the Welsh language is best served by what we propose."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 March 1980; c. 244.]

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Taking the logic of that argument, does the hon. Gentleman not accept the argument advanced by the then Professor Jac L. Williams, that Welsh ought to be featured on channel 1 of the IBA and channel 1 of the BBC network?

Mr. Roberts: There is scope for discussion of the extent to which that is so. The crux of this debate is whether the Welsh programme should be on one channel, or two channels, as the Government propose. The burden of my remarks is that once we have consigned all the Welsh language programmes to one channel there is no going back—or so I would have thought.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 22 attempts to ensure that all Welsh language programmes produced by the BBC or by the IBA as Welsh contractor are shown on the fourth channel in Wales. We do not accept the contention that it is essential to the well-being of the Welsh language that all television programmes in Welsh should be shown on the fourth channel in Wales. We do not believe that our proposals will have a detrimental effect on the language. On the contrary, we are convinced that the arrangements set out in clause 20 offer ample scope for the authority and the BBC to consult in a way that will ensure that the interests of all viewers, Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh-speaking, are protected in terms of timing and scheduling of Welsh language programmes.
The proposals of the previous Government envisaged the establishment of a Welsh language television council, which would consist of representatives of BBC Wales, the Welsh Independent Television contractor, the IBA and the OBA, and would be chaired by the OBA representative. Although we reject the OBA in principle, the proposals of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South at least recognised the difficulties inherent in placing programmes produced by one broadcasting organisation on a service being supervised by another.
Amendment No. 30 refers to the separate board. The IBA has a clear duty to ensure that the fourth channel in

Wales contains a suitable proportion of programmes in Welsh. In addition, section 4 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 requires it to ensure:
that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations".
The removal of the Welsh language requirements from this section in no way invalidates the other requirement. The authority is, therefore, required to ensure that the needs of Welsh-speaking viewers are met, as well as the wider needs of the people of Wales for programmes catering for their special tastes and outlook. I do not think that it is desirable to go further than this in legislation. The authority is aware of what is required of it, and it is for it, along with its fourth channel subsidiary and the Welsh ITV contractor, to ensure that the needs of all viewers in Wales are met. In addition, clause 20 requires the authority to consult the BBC on the scheduling of Welsh language programmes to ensure that the best interests of the people of Wales are served.
Amendment No. 80 was not spoken to, and I shall simply say that the clause to which it refers relates solely to the independent local radio contractors and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to apply these provisions to the fourth channel service in Wales. I trust that this will at least give some indication of the way in which a full reply to the amendment would run.
11.30 pm
Amendment No. 108 is a somewhat lengthy amendment and was spoken to by the hon. Member for Merioneth. I am not convinced that the problems of scheduling Welsh language programmes can be solved in the way proposed by the amendment. The BBC and the authority have a clear duty to provide programmes in the Welsh language, and this Bill lays upon them the additional duty to consult one another with a view to ensuring that the best interests of the Welsh people are served.
They already consult informally on the scheduling of Welsh language programmes and, by and large, this seems to have worked out reasonably well. Of course, the problems will increase with the increase in the number of programmes in Welsh. We intend that much


of the output should be shown at peak hours, but the advent of the fourth channel will greatly increase the authority's room to manoeuvre. In addition, the Government intend that an independent adviser should be appointed to act as honest broker should the BBC and the authority be unable to resolve matters in their consultations.
The whole tenor of the Bill, not only in regard to broadcasting in Welsh, is to give the broadcasters as much flexibility as possible within broad guidelines. I should be surprised if a council of about 18 persons, comprising three interest groups, were to be particularly flexible, but the council's function would not, I understand, be confined to Welsh language scheduling.
The Government hope that at least 20 hours of Welsh language programmes will be available per week by the autumn of 1982, when we hope that the fourth channel service will start. This amounts to more than three hours a day. The IBA intends to transmit 12 hours a week of programmes in Welsh once the fourth channel is on the air, compared with the seven hours that are now broadcast. The BBC also intends to increase its present eight hours a week of Welsh language programmes to 10 hours a week. That constitutes a total of 20 to 22 hours a week which is no less than was envisaged in the last Government's White Paper.
I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that programme quality is as important as quantity, and that expansion of the order that I have mentioned will place a great strain on the resources of the BBC in Wales and on the IBA's Welsh contractor. Any further expansion at this time could probably be achieved only at the expense of quality. This is not to say that the broadcasters should not increase their Welsh language output when circumstances permit, and that will be easier with two channels than with one.
I urge the House to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, respect his undertakings for the future, allow the Bill to proceed and reject the amendments.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps I may sum up for those who support the amendments. I thank the hon. and learned Member for

Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) for opening the debate in the way that he did. I think that the Home Secretary and the Government Front Bench generally will have seen from the debate how important it was that it should have taken place before he made his announcement in Cambridge. He has seen and heard tonight the depth of feeling in all parties on both sides of the argument. It cuts across party lines. But there is strong consensus on this issue in most parts of Wales which should not be ignored.
I declare an interest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), in that in a few weeks I shall be appearing in court through my refusal to pay a television licence fee because of this issue. This is the first time that I have done such a thing. I did not imagine that I should ever be in the position of doing so.
For the past 10 years there has been a campaign in Wales on this issue. We who have carried on the fight for the Welsh language through constitutional means have said that the battle could be won through the House of Commons. There was all-party consensus before the last election and commitments in the Conservative Party manifesto. We thought that what we were seeking would happen. How do I now square up to those people When we say that we put all our faith in the process of democracy and that process is spurned—no matter whether it is in a matter of days or weeks—it puts us in a position in which there appears to be no alternative.
Twenty years ago a similar thing happened with radio broadcasting in Wales and my father in law appeared in the courts. It was then said that a Welsh language radio channel was not possible. We now have it on VHF and it is working satisfactorily.
The argument in favour of the fourth channel solution does not come only from those who speak Welsh; it comes from the non-Welsh speaking areas of Wales, as we heard in the debate. I know the language situation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands). I know the tensions there between those who speak Welsh and those who do not speak Welsh. I know of the love-fear.


relationship with the language. I used to live there before entering Parliament.
The great merit of the one-channel solution was that on the one hand it presented a service for the Welsh language and on the other it gave an opportunity for the 80 per cent. of people in Wales who are non-Welsh-speaking to have a service as well, through the English language, and not to have to continue beaming their sets towards masts in England for programmes from Granada, HTV, West, and the rest.
That was the reason for consensus. It was an answer that solved the problems of both the English-speaking people in Wales who wanted programmes from Wales about Wales in the English language, and the Welsh speakers who wanted a proper service, not a few odd half hours at half past ten at night. They would have received a peak hour service through the Welsh language.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) of the arguments that were advanced—they were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson)—by the late Jac L. Williams who argued that there should be Welsh programmes at peak viewing times on the BBC and channel one of ITV. We do not have that option tonight. That door has been closed. The option that we have is whether we shall be put in one or two ghettos. The one ghetto, in the view of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, has at least the chance to develop as an integrated service. The other means a split between channels with the same problems for the non-Welsh speakers. They will be tuning in to the West and North-West of England while the Welsh speakers will get no service.

In other words, we are losing out on a historic opportunity to get a creative solution to the problem. It was clear, listening to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), that they are uneasy about the way things have gone. The hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned that he had received 100 letters and every single one went against the Government's change of policy.

The House must take notice of this issue and I am glad, therefore, that in response to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth the Government have indicated that it is still possible, even if the Bill goes through in its present form, to have the one-channel solution for the Welsh language. An executive, not a legislative, decision needs to be taken.

We have heard tonight of a compromise or concession, but that does not go anywhere near meeting the problem. If we are to institute the pattern desired by the Government with the Welsh language programmes split between two channels, what will happen is that on channel 4 people will get used to receiving their programmes from London. It will become harder and harder to cut across that pattern as the years go by.

If it is going to be done it should be done now. I appeal to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales to show even greater grace than they believed they were showing when they thanked their election commitment, by changing again. That is the overwhelming desire of the majority of people in Wales.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 166.

Division No. 368]
AYES
[11.39 pm


Abse, Leo
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Cowans, Harry
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Foster, Derek


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dalyell, Tam
Freud, Clement


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dixon, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, Jack
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Douglas, Dick
Home Robertson, John




Homewood, William
McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Hon Greville
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


John, Brynmor
O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Michael


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Lamond, James
Prescott, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Leadbitter, Ted
Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Leighton, Ronald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winnick, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted
Woolmer, Kenneth


McCartney, Hugh
Sheerman, Barry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton East)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Soley, Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. George Morton and


McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie
 Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gummer, John Selwyn
Parris, Matthew


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hannam, John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Percival, Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Hawkins, Paul
Pollock, Alexander


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heddle, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Barry
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Blackburn, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Renton, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Hill, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hooson, Tom
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bulmer, Esmond
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stainton, Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Channon, Paul
MacGregor, John
Steen, Anthony


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stevens, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Colvin, Michael
Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Cope, John
Marlow, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Cranborne, Viscount
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Mates, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Crouch, David
Mather, Carol
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Dover, Denshore
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waller, Gary


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Warren, Kenneth


Eyre, Reginald
Moate, Roger
Watson, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wheeler, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mudd, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fry, Peter
Murphy, Christopher
Whitney, Raymond


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Myles, David
Wickenden, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard
Wilkinson, John


Goodhew, Victor
Needham, Richard
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Gow, Ian
Newton, Tony



Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Osborn, John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
 Mr. Peter Brooke.


Grylls, Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 4, line 12, leave out 'Service'.

No. 25, in page 4, line 16, leave out 'in' and insert 'on'.

Clause 4

PROVISION OF PROGRAMMES (OTHER THAN ADVERTISEMENTS) FOR THE FOURTH CHANNEL SERVICE.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 4, line 26, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 27, in page 4, line 33, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 31, in page 4, line 40, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 32, in page 4, line 45, leave out 'Service'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 4, line 46, leave out 'a substantial proportion' and insert 'all'.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the output of the fourth channel consists entirely of programmes that are produced by persons who are of neither of the descriptions that feature in clause 4(3)(b):
namely a TV programme contractor and a body corporate under the control of a TV programme contractor.
Before the Minister responds and says that by proposing the amendment I am destroying the effect of the proposals debated some hours earlier, I wish to make it clear that my proposal refers to the fourth channel service as a whole, and especially to the position in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
I am introducing the amendment because of the inadequate response either from the Government in Committee or from the IBA about the make-up of the production output for the fourth channel service. There was an initial statement from the IBA which told us that the possible pattern at the start of the service would be that between 15 per cent. and 35 per cent. of the output of the fourth channel would come from independent

producers. That statement was overtaken by the closer participation between the IBA, its proposed subsidiary board and the present independent contractors. I am trying to elicit from the Government their present position, having considered what was said in Committee about the role to be played in the fourth channel service by programme sources that are not currently involved in the production of programmes.
When the successor to Asa Briggs writes the history of broadcasting in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, the debate will be seen as a missed opportunity by the previous Labour Adminstration, because of their public expenditure policies, to create a diversified media system on television throughout Britain. The issue about diversification that we have debated is part of that question—the way in which we are failing to provide a media system that is directed towards the production of messages not arising from current sources.
The Government decided to go for ITV 2 service and to give the present contractors a greater role in the administration of the channel and in producing programme material for it. Then the basic cultural contradiction between the economic base of commercial television in advertising and promoting the values of cultural capitalism and the need to make the service comprehensive and meet the demands of a variety of viewers came into being. Such a contradiction is to be found throughout cultural policy when commercial viability challenges creativity.

Mr. Brinton: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's argument for separating the present contractors from anyone else providing material for channel 4, but many creative people are working with the present contractors and wish to expand their services. From where would the material come in the early stages of the operation if they were not supplied by the present contractors?

Mr. Thomas: I appreciate the argument about existing facilities. The existing centres of production could be utilised by creative persons working for the present contractors. They could use production facilities for their own work which is not necessarily related to work commissioned by the contractors. That would help to give people employed by


the present contractors or by the BBC more creative opportunities for developing alternative programmes.
The organisational constraints of making the fourth channel an organisation in which the present contracting companies play a major role will consign us to the same type of output, in terms of image, as we have now. The BBC reacted to the provision of commercial television by providing a similar type of service.
There is a swinging pendulum about which company is to be the major contributor on channel 4. Initially, in 1971, the then Conservative Government issued a report stating that the companies would divest themselves of a significant proportion of air time and that programme responsibility would be placed with independent bodies. The Annan report swung further towards independent producers with the OBA concept.
The independents increasingly are being squeezed out under the pressure of the ITCA lobby. The Government must make their present position clear on the balance to be established on channel 4. The IBA chairman stated last year that the big companies had to be part of the channel because only they could provide the steady flow of programmes needed.
12 midnight
Many people who have been concerned about the development of alternative forms of programme-making, and alternative types of images are now concerned that we shall see on channel 4 a steady flow of the type of material that has originated in the programme companies over the years. Channel 4 should be a different type of channel, with a different approach to scheduling and programme making. It should be a channel committed to diversity and innovation. It should be seen as an alternative channel, not as complementary to or a continuation of the type of programming of the BBC and the commercial companies.
There is a basic contradiction. The programme makers, and particularly the independent producers, want to be as free as possible to put forward their programme projects and to develop their skills and their messages. At the same time, they will be responsible to the subsidiary board of the IBA, which will include major interests from the com

mercial contractors. I am concerned about the way in which the present commercial contractor in Wales—Harlech Television—has been deliberately trying to undermine the position of the independent producers and has been trying to squeeze them out and positively discriminate against the people whom it used to hire on a freelance basis, because it is worried that they will set themselves up as independent producers and compete with it. I am sure that that is repeated in other contract areas.
If the channel is dominated by commercial interests, the opportunity for experimentation will be substantially reduced. If the channel has to operate in the shadow of the present franchise holders, that shadow will dominate the programming and will restrict the way in which the independent producers can operate.
If we are to have a more diversified programme system and changes in experimentation and production methods, and if we are to develop a more open relationship with the audience in channel 4, it will be extremely difficult if it is dominated by the modes of thinking and production that are practised in the current system.
One of the most hopeful developments in the media in the United Kingdom generally in recent years has been the growth of community media. Much of the work that is carried out by community media projects is not up to broadcast standard, but with some investment, those community programme makers could provide material that would be of adequate standard for broadcasting. Will that sort of development be initiated if the channel is dominated by the commercial producers? I think not, because the bias will be in favour of commercial and corporate production, rather than the sort of community production that allows access to the audience directly, as opposed to the limited access in the traditional television system, with studios concentrated in centres away from the audience.
It is for those reasons that I have moved the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that it is a Utopian amendment which seeks to provide a system on the fourth channel that is entirely diversified and separate from the companies.
I would like a specific response to the debate that we had in Committee on 24 April, on clause 3(1)(c). The Minister said then that the obligation for innovation and experimentation was
a serious statutory obligation imposed by Parliament with bipartisan support."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 April 1980; c. 659.]
Is he satisfied that in the present position that the IBA is taking in the relationship between contractors and the channel, that obligation is being carried out? Is the obligation for innovation and experiment in form and content one that the Department has a clear definition and understanding of? What discussions has the Department had with the IBA about the ways in which the concepts enshrined in the Bill can be implemented?
Finally, what is the Minister's position now on the proposal put forward by the Independent Film-makers' Association for the foundation to act as a base for this kind of innovation? In Committee the question was raised whether it would be possible to place a percentage of the channel's budget in a foundation of this kind, which would then be available for making developments in the service, particularly in the style of programme. Changes in video technology and the communications media happen so rapidly that we do not want to ossify ourselves in a fourth channel that will be a predictable reproduction of the kind of media messages currently available, when in five or 10 years' time we shall see a massive expansion of video discs, increasing use of VTR, and the Euro-satellite. In that context it is very important that the fourth channel is, from the start, a distinctive, diversified service, directed towards alternative and different sources of production and, therefore, the creation of alternative images, for the viewers.

Mr. Britton: The best assurance that I can give the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) that the Government do not wish the present structure to be ossified, as he put it, and do not wish to continue with the sort of arrangements that we have now, is very simple. If the Government were content with the ITV companies running the show in the same old way on the fourth channel, nothing could have been simpler than to have given the fourth channel to the ITV companies. The

very fact that in this Bill we have set up a whole structure, doing something quite different, shows clearly that that is not our intention and that we do not want the fourth channel to be dominated by the ITV companies or their subsidiaries. We do not intend that that should happen, and the Bill is designed to avoid it.
One of the principal safeguards is the provision that a substantial proportion of the programmes should be broadcast from sources other than the ITV contractors or bodies controlled by them. For reasons that I indicated at length in Committee, we think that that proportion is not something that should be included in legislaion. One of the reasons for that is that we think it would be a great mistake to prescribe and fix a percentage of that kind.
The amendment would effectively debar ITV contractors from providing programmes for the fourth channel. However much one may want others to provide programmes, and even if it were desirable to set up a foundation, I still believe that it would be unrealistic to say from the outset that existing contractors should not contribute any programmes. It is unrealistic to think that one could provide the programmes without any contribution from the existing contractors. I therefore advise the House not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Freud: Does not the Minister feel that two conditionals are too much? A substantial proportion is no proportion, and cannot be quantified. It should be. We would accept that a substantial proportion must be, or that 15 per cent. should be. Is he not getting his own way too much? Is this not against the sentiments of the Bill?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill says that it will be the authority's duty to ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature. It states that a substantial proportion should come from sources other than ITV contractors, or bodies controlled by them. The hon. Gentleman is making a semantic Point, rather than a real point. The obligation is there.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If it is for the convenience of the House, the following amendments


will be moved formally: amendments Nos. 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 to 43, 45 to 49 and 51.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 50 stands in the names of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and myself. It comes before amendment No. 51. I should resent it deeply if it were included in the last group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is only minimally incorrect. If he looks one line further he will see that amendment No. 50 is in its correct place, after amendment No. 51. It goes by the Bill, and not by the numbers of the amendments.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 5, line 1, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert ' on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 34, in page 5, line 8, leave out 'Service'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 5

ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE FOURTH CHANNEL SERVICE

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 5, line 16, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 38, in page 5, line 27, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 39, in page 5, line 30, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 41, in page 5, line 43, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 42, in page 6, line 21 leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 43, in page 6, line 25 leave out 'in' and insert 'on'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 6

AMENDMENT OF MAIN SCHEDULE 2A

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 6, line 31 leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 46, in page 6, line 37 leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 7

CONTENT OF ANNUAL REPORTS

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 7, line 1 leave out 'Service'.

No. 48, in page 7, line 11 leave out from 'broadcast' to 'respectively' in line 12 and insert
'on ITV and the Fourth Channel'.

No. 49, in page 7, line 16 leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 51, in page 7, line 17 leave out 'in' and insert 'on'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 7, line 18, at end insert
'including the criteria by which the Fourth Channel Company determine that any programme is innovative in form, content or origin, the amount of financial support by purchase or otherwise provided by the Fourth Channel Company on such programmes, and the proportion of such support in the foregoing year, such proportion to be not less than 10 per cent. of the revenue of the Fourth Channel Company.'.
I shall pursue the discussions that we had in Committee on 24 April. My proposal is modest and I hope that it will attract the attention and sympathy of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson), who suggested in Committee that he might be marginally sympathetic to the notion of obliging the authority to make a percentage "guestimate", as it is obliged to provide innovative programmes of a distinctive type.
We have already been reminded of the Minister's statement in Committee. He said:
The authority and its subsidiary will have to work out carefully how they will discharge


a serious statutory obligation, imposed by Parliament with bipartisan support. The Government are entirely serious about the matter; we shall impose a statutory obligation on the authority and its subsidiary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 April 1980; c. 659.]
12.15 am
When we look at the fine sentiments beginning in clause 3 and continuing in later clauses, we find that that obligation is largely realised in the report that the authority must make, which is discussed in clause 7. I therefore suggest that we should include a number of additional elements in that report. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and I therefore suggest that the end of clause 7 should be inserted:
including the criteria by which the Fourth Channel Company determine that any programme is innovative in form, content or origin, the amount of financial support by purchase or otherwise provided by the Fourth Channel Company on such programmes, and the proportion of such support in the foregoing year, such proportion to be not less than 10 per cent. of the revenue of the Fourth Channel Company.
That can be done already. The authority could have already said that it was prepared to give such an undertaking. Since the authority would begin with subscription income in its first year in excess of £70 million, a 10 per cent. minimum for the innovative programmes would be about £7 million. For some innovative programmes, programme costs are about £30,000 per hour. It is therefore clear that £7 million is not a vast sum by comparison.
The Minister said that we were imposing a serious statutory obligation on the authority. In a letter to the Independent Film-makers' Association, the private secretary to Lord Belstead said:
there is nothing to prevent them"—
that is, the IBA—
adopting the kind of approach which you propose and we shall be interested in the outcome of any future discussions you may have with the IBA.
Such discussions have gone on between the independent film makers and the authority. Those discussions guide the hon. Member for Isle of Ely and myself in bringing forward this amendment and pressing it to the vote if we do not have a sympathetic response from the Government.
We all welcome the indication that there is a "serious statutory obligation", but in the time that has elapsed since 24 April we have not heard a single word from the authority about how it intends to identify these concepts of innovation and experiment in form and content. We have heard nothing about the way in which it will earmark funds for that purpose. We have heard a great deal from the leading figures in the companies and the ITCA about how poor they are and how difficult it will be for them to contribute to the funding of the fourth channel. The remarks in the prospectus of Granada Television were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) earlier in the debate.
In Committee in April I quoted Mr. Bill Brown's remarks about the lean years that he believed the companies would face with regard to profitability. There is now a rumour that Mr. Bill Brown has been appointed as one of the ITCA figures on the fourth channel board, along with two other managing directors from the companies and Mrs. Joy Whitby, a programme maker and personal friend of mine, whom I hold in high regard. However, she is a senior executive with Yorkshire Television, and hardly a representative of the independents. When the representatives of the independents are chosen for the board of the fourth channel company, how will they carry clout and make their case against the representative of the companies if they vote as a block?
There is one way—by being able to point not only to undertakings given in Standing Committee but to the phraseology of the statute. They should be able to say that there is an obligation that the fourth channel company must spend a minimum amount of money each year in pursuit of programmes of innovation and experiment.
The Independent Film-makers Association has circulated hon. Members with the view that the foundation was the necessary guarantee. That may have been a slightly cumbrous suggestion. It did not find favour with the Government in Committee. The whole notion has an echo of science fiction about it—Isaac Asimov for managing director, perhaps. We have kept away, for the purposes of the amendment, from anything so cumbrous as the


notion of a foundation. We have indicated, instead, that we would be happy with the setting of a minimum figure for expenditure on programmes of innovation and experiment during the early years of the fourth channel.
We know that the fourth channel board will be chaired by our former colleague, Edmund Dell, who will also continue to be chairman of a notable merchant bank. I understand that he is not giving up that position in order to go to the fourth channel company. I have a great deal of time for Edmund Dell. I esteem him as an individual. I think, however, that he would be the first to admit—and has, indeed, admitted, in an interview in Campaign magazine, recently—that he knows little about television, watches ITN's "News at Ten", and that is about all, and, therefore, goes into an area that he knows not much about and is surprised to have been selected for.
If that is the position, we cannot see that a part-time chairman will be in a position to insist—I hope that he will—upon due need being given to the programmes of innovation with which we are concerned in the amendment. The only way in which we can honour the wise and direct words of the Minister in Committee regarding the statutory obligation is to make sure that the statute, in this instance, deals in terms of percentages. We suggest a modest percentage to the House.

Mr. Brittan: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be innovation. That is reflected in the Bill. A requirement is imposed upon the IBA to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of the programmes. I also think, as I indicated in an analogous argument on another subject, that it is right that one of the ways in which that obligation should be monitored is by means of a requirement in the report relating to that obligation. One finds a requirement in clause 7 (2) that the report of the authority should contain an account of the way in which it has discharged its duty
as regards the encouragement of innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes for broadcasting in the Fourth Channel Service.
I agree with that. The form of the legislation shows the Government's commitment in that direction. I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I do not think

that one should go further by requiring the IBA to set out criteria by which it determines that any programme is innovative in form, content or origin. Those criteria would be abstract in the extreme and would shed little light on the operation and work of the fourth channel company in deciding what programmes should be provided that come within this category. A much clearer indication would be given if the report contained a description of what has been done, as is prescribed by clause 7.
As to whether there should be a fixed money percentage to go on innovative programmes, one of the problems is that that presupposes that it is possible to state in a form sufficiently precise for it to be appropriate to appear in a statute whether a programme is innovative. That is a subjective judgment and it would be inappropriate for percentages to be applied to it. When seeking to apply a percentage it is difficult enough to decide whether a programme is of an educational character. To say whether a legal requirement that a programme percentage should be innovative has been complied with would be giving a precise meaning to words that they must have if they are to have any legal effect, but which I do not think that they bear.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that when called upon to explain how it makes refunds to radio companies for programmes of merit the IBA has no difficulty in defining merit?

Mr. Brittan: It is one thing to explain how it does that, which is analogous to what it will do in the report, but another to have a fixed percentage to enable one to say that there has been a breach of the law by the IBA because it has not spent the 10 per cent. In order to test whether that was so, one would have to test which programmes were innovation. We must have precision in legislation. If it is impossible or undesirable, one ought to think again about imposing such quotas.

Mr. Freud: This is a simple amendment. I support the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in the most simplistic terms. It has been announced that there will be more than 2,000 hours of channel 4 transmission. It is agreed that the amount available will


be about £70 million and it is understood that we are budgeting on about £30,000 per programme hour.
All that the amendment seeks to do is to use the language of the Minister in the Bill. He seeks in clause 3 to encourage:
innovation and experiments in the form and content of programmes".
We are trying, putting it simplistically, to enable the Minister to put the money where his mouth is. Instead of saying that we will encourage innovation and experiment, we should say that we shall give a certain minimum proportion of the available budget in order to achieve what is set out in clause 3(1)(c).
I believe that 10 per cent. is a reasonable sum. I do not see why the Minister should be allowed to bask in the reflected

glory of his innovative clause and say "I can do this for no money at all". I admit that clause 7 allows him to make a retrospective admission that innovative experiments cost so much.

We should like the Minister to admit that, having had a good idea about programme content, he will allow a sufficiency of money to be used in order to achieve it. I will support the hon. Member for Derby, North in taking the amendment to a Division, because with the experimental and innovative nature of the appointments to the board of channel 4 there should at least be some realistic substance to giving innovation to the programme content.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 130.

Division No. 369]
AYES
[12.29 am


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wigley, Dafydd


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Penhaligon, David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Cryer, Bob
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



English, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Homewood, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Clement Freud and


Howells, Geraint
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. D. E. Thomas.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newton, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Bendall, Vivian
Hawksley, Warren
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Best, Keith
Heddle, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heffer, Eric S.
Parris, Matthew


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Blackburn, John
Hill, James
Percival, Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pollock, Alexander


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Brittan, Leon
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Channon, Paul
Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Major, John
Speller, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dover, Denshore
Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Durant, Tony
Mellor, David
Tebbit, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Thompson, Donald


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Waddington, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wakeham, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David
Waller, Gary


Gow, Ian
Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth




Watson, John
Whitney, Raymond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)
Wickendon, Keith
Mr. John MacGregor and


Wheeler, John
Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 7, line 23, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 54, in page 7, line 25, leave out from 'broadcast' to 'respectively' in line 26 and insert
'on ITV and the Fourth Channel'.

No. 55, in page 7, line 29, leave out
'in the Fourth Channel Service'
and insert 'on the Fourth Channel'.

No. 56, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'advertisements' to 'respectively' in line 33 and insert
'on ITV and the Fourth Channel'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 81 and 92.

Mr. Brittan: These are drafting amendments, designed to tidy up the Bill by introducing a single provision, rather than more than one, relating to the Secretary of State's power to give directions about the content of the annual report of the IBA.

Mr. Rathbone: I realise that this is simply a drafting amendment, but it touches on the requirement for the authority to report on, among other things, the advertising content of the fourth channel. My eye is caught by the requirements in clause 7(2) and (3) where there is, perhaps, a semantic difference in wording in calling for a general account in relation to advertising. In clause 7(2)(b) there is a call for "an account"; in (c) for "a description" and in subsection 2(d) for "a description". I hope that the use of the word "general" is not an outlet for not being precise enough in any account that is given in the annual report.
It is crucial that the authority should be charged to report on the advertising content of the fourth channel. As my

hon. and learned Friend knows, there is now a need to reassure ourselves that there is no collusion between advertising on ITV I and the fourth channel. There is also the need to ensure that the time-selling on the fourth channel and on ITV I is competitively priced and not prone to the monopoly system that has occasionally been in practice with ITV I.
I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend can reassure me that clause 7(3) covers the eventuality of the possible influence of advertisers on programming. It is not explicit within the clause and it is, obviously, a power of the Secretary of State to make an explicit requirement for reporting within the provision. It is all the more important because there is a complete lack of separation between the responsibilities for programme production and responsibilities for advertising sales. I think that it would help the House if my hon. and learned Friend could reassure me on those two points.

Mr. Whitehead: I have one query about the necessity for leaving out clause 7(3). For those who are wide enough awake to have read it, it provides that the power of the Secretary of State under the main Act to give directions as to the information to be included in the report shall be in no way altered or diminished.
It seems to me, in view of what we have already said in the debate, that that might well be a power that was sometimes needed. It might be needed precisely because we have had discussions on the question whether the encouragement of innovation and experiment—to take the subject matter of the last two amendments, for a start—could be a matter that would concern the Secretary of State, or some future Secretary of State, in relation to the performance of the authority and the contents of its report in subsequent years. If that is so, I cannot quite see why subsection (3) is otiose, as suggested by the amendment.

Mr. Brittan: The position is that I am able to give the assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) sought.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 8, line 26, at end insert
'after the commencement of this section '.
This is a Government amendment to provide for a starting date for the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Without the amendment the commission would be able to entertain complaints about programmes broadcast before it began to function. The difficulties to which this could give rise need no explanation. It is therefore proposed that the starting date should be the same date as that on which the commission is empowered to receive and consider complaints. We hope that this date will be 1 April next year.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 8, line 28, at beginning insert 'unwarranted'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60 to 62, 64 and 65.

Mr. Brittan: These are Government amendments, which have been put forward as a result of the further consideration that I undertook to give in Committee about the possibility of qualifying the phrase "infringement of privacy" in clause 9(1)(b) by words such as "unwarranted", or "unfair". As the House will see, we have concluded that to limit it to the consideration of "unwarranted infringement of privacy" will meet the concerns expressed in Committee. I therefore hope that the amendment—which, in form, has to be a number of amendments, because the phrase appears several times—will commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 8, line 36, after second 'or', insert 'unwarranted'.

No. 61, in page 9, line 8, after 'such', insert 'unwarranted'.

No. 62, in page 9, line 15, after 'alleged', insert 'unwarranted'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 10

MAKING AND ENTERTAINMENT OF COMPLAINTS

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 9, line 36, after second 'or', insert 'unwarranted'.

No. 65, in page 9, line 39, after second 'or', insert 'unwarranted'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 11

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE CONSIDERA TION OF COMPLAINTS

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 11, line 14, leave out from 'to' to 'a' in line 15 and insert 'consider'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 67 to 73.

Mr. Brittan: The effect of these amendments will be to make express provision for the commission, if it thinks fit in any particular case, to interview the parties to a complaint separately and to pay them expenses incurred in attending such an interview. We think that it is desirable that the commission should have power, if it thinks fit, to interview separately one or more of the bodies mentioned in clause 11(2) either instead of or in addition to holding a hearing. That is obviously a requirement that makes sense in relation to the Bill as a whole.
Clause 11 (5) is amended so as to lay a duty on the relevant broadcasting body to comply with a request from the commission to send a representative to attend upon it when it proposes to consider a complaint. The amended wording will cover attendance at a hearing or at a separate interview.
Subsections (6) and (7)(e) are amended so as to make it the duty of the broadcasting body that broadcasts a programme about which complaint is made to take such steps as it reasonably can to ensure that any other person responsible for making or providing a programme complies with a request from the commission for his attendance. Again, the amended wording will extend to attendance for the purpose of a hearing or a separate interview.
Subsection (9) is amended so as to empower the commission, at its discretion, to pay travelling and subsistence allowances to any person who attends it in connection with a complaint that is, for the purpose of a hearing or a separate interview.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 67, in page 11, line 18 leave out 'the hearing'.

No. 68, in page 11, line 21 leave out from 'Where' to first 'have' in line 22 and insert
', in connection with a complaint received by them, the Commission'.

No. 69, in page 11, line 22 after 'person', insert
'(other than the broadcasting body by whom the relevant programme was broadcast)'.

No. 70, in page 11, line 25 leave out from 'of' to first 'to' in line 26 and insert 'that broadcasting body'.

No. 71, in page 12, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert
'and assist the Commission in their consideration of the complaint.'.

No. 72, in page 12, line 12 leave out from 'may' to 'such' in line 13 and insert
', if they think fit, make to any person who attends them in connection with a complaint'.

No. 73, in page 12, leave out line 17 and insert 'so to attend'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 12, line 17 at end insert—
'(10) In respect of complaints made in a language spoken in the United Kingdom other than English, or complaints arising out of a programme transmitted in a language other than English, the commission shall consider such complaints in that language or provide at its expense for written or verbal simultaneous translation from that language into English.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 104, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, at end insert—
'in English and other United Kingdom languages in which radio and television programmes are broadcast.'.

Mr. Thomas: The purpose of these two amendments is to assert that if television and broadcasting are a cultural medium, in a multilingual State they are also a multi-cultural medium. Complaints

made about programmes should be dealt with in the language in which those programmes were broadcast. Amendment No. 104 refers to the publication of a report of the findings of the Complaints Commission
in English and other United Kingdom languages in which radio and television programmes are broadcast.
The intention of the two amendments is to make the work of the commission effective not only for anglophones, or English speakers, but for the substantial proportion—the many millions—in the United Kingdom who speak, as their home language, languages other than English. I cite the recent ILEA survey, which indicated that out of a sample of 4,000 sixth-form pupils there were as many as 55 separate home languages. At the moment, television programmes are not broadcast in all those languages, but they are in a significant number.
We hope that as the fourth channel develops—and if it provides diversity for minorities, including linguistic minorities—provision in languages other than English in the West Midlands, Wales and the Gaelic-speaking areas of Scotland, will be extended. We also hope that the commission will take note of that and function in a way that will ensure that a West Indian or Asian complainant can take his complaint about a broadcast item in that language to the commission and receive a fair hearing. That is the intention of these amendments. They are an attempt to ensure that linguistic justice is seen to be done in the United Kingdom.
In the past we have been very anglophone—very anglocentric, one might say. The intention of these amendments is to try to put that right.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My advice is that amendment No. 103 is unnecessary, in the sense that it is unnecessary to lay a specific obligation on the commission to achieve this effect. Although the commission is not intended to operate as a court of law, it will be expected to have full regard to the laws of natural justice in carrying out its functions. These would require the commission to make any special arrangements necessary, such as translation facilities, to ensure that a complainant is enabled to present his case to them. For that reason we think that the amendment is unnecessary. We


believe that the commission may be relied upon to ensure that a complainant does not fail to have his complaint considered because, let us say, he is a Welsh speaker, or for any similar reason.
Referring to amendment No. 104, the Government appreciate the reasons that prompted it. The commission's jurisdiction will extend to complaints made by people living in all parts of the United Kingdom. Its annual report will be of general public interest. Having recognised that, however, we are not persuaded of the justification for producing the annual report in languages other than English. The expression:
In English and other United Kingdom languages
would include Gaelic as well as Welsh.
Where the commission adjudicates upon an individual complaint made in Welsh, or about a programme broadcast in Welsh, it would be open to the commission, under clause 12, to require the adjudication to be published in that language. Under subsection (3), which is the subject of a Government amendment, the periodic summaries that the commission is to be required to publish of every complaint could reasonably be published in Welsh as well as in English in appropriate cases.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12

PUBLICATION OF COMMISSION'S FINDINGS

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 12, line 22, after "specified", insert
a summary of the complaint approved for the purpose by the Commission and".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77.

Mr. Brittan: The purpose of amendments Nos. 74 and 75 is to amplify clause 12(1) so as to empower the commission to direct a broadcasting body to publish a summary of a complaint on which it has adjudicated, as well as its findings. It is in the public interest that the commission should be able to require the publication of details of the complaint as well as the conclusion reached. The

amendments give it the express power to do so.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 fulfil the undertaking that I gave on clause 12 in Committee. Their object is to ensure that the outcome of every complaint in which the commission has jurisdiction is made publicly available. The new provisions augment the existing provisions of clause 12, under which, if the commission has adjudicated upon a complaint, it may direct the broadcasting body which broadcast the programme giving rise to the complaint to publish its findings, or a summary of them.

Mr. Whitehead: I rise simply to say that this series of amendments is to be welcomed. They meet the spirit of the discussions in Committee. If other complaints bodies, including the Police Complaints Board, were to go as deeply into the discussion of complaints we should be better off.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 12, leave out line 24 and insert "so approved".

No. 76, in page 12, line 26, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)".

No. 77, in page 12, line 26, at end insert—

"(3) The Commission shall publish, at such intervals and in such manner as they think fit, reports each containing, as regards every complaint within this subsection dealt with by them in the period covered by the report, a summary of the complaint and of the action taken by them on it and, where they have adjudicated upon it, a summary of their findings.
(4) A complaint made to the Commission is within subsection (3) unless it is one which they are precluded from entertaining by section 9(2) or 10(2).
(5) The Commission may, if they think fit, omit from any summary included in a report under subsection (3) any information which could lead to the disclosure of the identity of any person connected with the complaint in question other than a broadcasting body or programme contractor.".—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 16

RENTAL PAYMENTS BY LOCAL SOUND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 14, line 27, at end insert—
'(5) The provisions of Schedule 2 of this Act shall not come into force until an order


has been laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State and has been approved by an affirmative resolution of each House.'.
I wish to put a brief case about the levy. Even at this late hour, it is a case worth putting. I shall try to put my case in two minutes. We deployed the general case about the local broadcasting levy in Committee. We lost that case, and for the moment that is that. The Minister will recall that in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which I shall quote, as it will save time, we said:
If, as the Government expects, an expanded system of independent local radio is successful, it is also likely to be profitable … it is right that the public should have some share in them.
There is no disagreement on that matter. The paragraph continued:
In the early years, this share will take the form of finance for the expansion of independent local radio by means of cross-subsidisation through the rental system.
Thereafter, however, this share of the profitability … could be of a more direct nature, in the form of a levy similar to that which applies to … the independent television companies.
We said that proposals for the eventual introduction of such a levy would be included in legislation. There is no disagreement about the need for a levy, but the point of the argument in that paragraph is the same as the Government's argument. Rental should be cross-subsidised through the rental system.
1 am
How will the expansion go? If it were about 80 per cent. I could see the case for the levy being introduced. Will the levy be right? We are experiencing inflation. How much profit will be earned by companies? When private companies are not making profits, will they advertise as much as before? We are talking of a form of taxation. The Government should justify the introduction of the levy.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for putting the argument so succinctly. I shall reply in similar form.
There is a wide measure of agreement about the levy and its application, but should there be a requirement for parliamentary procedure before the levy is first brought in? We believe that there should be no such requirement, since the rate of the levy is expressed in the Bill

and the House takes a view about the levy when it passes the Bill. Changing the level of levy is another matter. Different procedures would then be appropriate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

GRANTS BY AUTHORITY TO LOCAL SOUND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 15, line 8, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 18

PROVISION OF TELETEXT SERVICES BY AUTHORITY

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 15, line 26, leave out 'not'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 107, in page 15, line 26, leave out from second 'Authority' to end of line 35.

Mr. Thomas: The purpose of the amendment is to get a clearer statement from the Government about the framework of the teletext service and to establish whether the Government foresee that a television contractor is to become a teletext contractor.
I endorse the recommendations made in the minority Annan committee's report. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) signed the note of dissent. He and others argued that a publishing service of data transmission was a broadcast. Broadcasting on a television network should not classify teletext transmissions as programmes. It is inappropriate that television programme contractors should be the major distributors of the teletext service.
Hon. Members who are interested in educational technology and distance learning do not wish the system to be developed as a subsidiary of the present broadcasting system for television programmes but as a separate publishing system. That is put in jeopardy by the Bill.
What is the Government's view? Do they agree that such developments could be limited and inhibited by linking the distribution system too closely with television programmes?

Mr. Brittan: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is seeking a wider policy explanation than in his amendments, but I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying a word about the amendments.
The amendments provide that the IBA should provide the material for the transmissions in the case of teletext. We do not think that that is an appropriate role for the authority, and the explanation of the Government's policy in relation to the matter is simple. The arrangement for the teletext service provided under the aegis of the IBA should, in general, match those of existing broadcasting services. The material for inclusion in those services should be provided not by the IBA but by contractors. Those contractors could be either the television contractors or specialist teletext contractors, or a combination of both.
There is no reason why there should be any limitation on the IBA if it chooses to appoint contractors in the normal way from one or other of the categories or from a combination of both. The IBA is not a programme-making organisation. It is a regulatory and supervisory body. We do not think it right that it should become a teletext contractor.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 15, line 41, after 'III', insert
and sections (Training of persons employed by programme contractors) and (Information as to television programme contracts and applications for such contracts)'.
This amendment applies to teletext contracts and contractors the provisions of the two new clauses introduced by the Government on Report dealing with the training of persons employed by programme contractors and with the supply of information as to television programmes contracts and application for such contracts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

EXCLUSION FROM PROGRAMMES OF OPINIONS OF AUTHORITY, THEIR SUB SIDIARY AND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 18, line 2, at end insert,
but including matters of broadcasting policy which may materially affect the position of a programme contractor".
The purpose of the amendment is to limit the role of television contractors in commenting publicly on issues that materially affect the position of the contractor. The amendment, as the Department may have already divined, arises from the exercise in which a television contractor in Wales was involved last year and in previous years in seeking to influence broadcasting policy. I refer, of course, to HTV, in Wales, which has been conducting a major campaign, both off the air and on the air, against what was then a Government-agreed consensus on the fourth channel. I do not wish to reiterate our earlier arguments at this time of night, but it is a serious matter of public policy when a television company has access to the air waves and when it is possible for it to set the agenda for a public debate in which it is both the subject and object.
The legislation to which this amendment adds controls the way in which broadcasting authorities can comment on matters that are controversial and that affect them—specifically, matters that are of political or industrial controversy or that relate to current public policy. It is a very serious breach by a contractor when it seeks to use its position to influence public debate about an area of broadcasting policy that materially affects it.
The exercise indulged in by HTV not only included the significant placing of items of news about itself in its own bulletins but included the publication of material distributed widely through the post among the Welsh Establishment. One household received three copies of this publication because the persons concerned were members of both Cymdeithas Cerdd Dant and Llys yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol, as well as one of them being an hon. Member. The intention


of that campaign was to influence public policy, and it was successful. It is a serious matter when a contractor uses its access to information about itself in this way.
We accept that the whole of the media system is completely biased in favour of the status quo, the ideas of the ruling class, and those who are able to control and administer our present political system. I am sure that hon. Members have read reviews of the successor to "Bad News", entitled "More Bad News", published recently by Glasgow university media group, which objectively and in a scholarly fashion indicated the nature of of the bias of our media system. It is extremely serious when, in perpetrating that bias, part of the media system defends its own material interests. Thus it tends to undermine public policy. The success of the campaign that I mentioned is indicated by the fact that the Government changed their policy.

Mr. Brittan: I have to advise the House not to accept the amendment. Clause 21, which the amendment seeks to amend, gives effect to main essentials in recommendations made by the Annan committee. In particular, the committee recommended a relaxation of the existing provisions to allow broadcasting authorities and contractors to express their views on broadcasting matters. I believe that that recommendation was sensible. I think that the limitations that have existed up to now are artificial. Of course it is right to say that there is always a risk that a freedom granted will be abused, but to limit it in the way that the hon. Member has suggested is an unreasonable and rather artificial restriction, and not a real safeguard.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the Minister's answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR SCOTLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I do not wish to move amendment No. 85.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 18, line 30,

leave out from 'persons to end of line 37 and insert
'invited to serve on the Committee upon being nominated by organisations representing the trades union movement, cultural, linguistic and ethnic minority groups, and at least one half of the persons serving on the committee shall be women.'.
This amendment refers specifically to the constitution of the advisory committees. The clause provides for the formalisation of the existing advisory committees in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Therefore, it raises the question of the way in which these committees are selected, the nomination procedures, and the personnel who find themselves on these committees.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that these committees are representative by inviting nominations from specific organisations, which are intended to reflect the class, cultural, linguistic and general diversity of the constitutent parts of the United Kingdom. That diversity is not often so represented. There is the statutory woman, and often the statutory trade unionist. There is always the statutory Welsh speaker in Wales, but these committees do not reflect in any genuine way the diversity of real interests that should be so reflected.
The Government generally appear to be against quangos, yet a quango is being formalised in the Bill. The method of nomination to those committees is less clear than for even the BBC advisory committees. We have far too many such self-appointed committees in the cultural field. It is high time that they were directly or indirectly elected or disposed of. They tend to become sounding boards or bodies that accept the advice of the contractors on whose performance they are supposed to be reporting, and are therefore inadequate.
1.15 am
In Committee the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said that those advisory committees:
tend to become self-perpetuating groups which largely reflect that which the broadcasting organisations, allegedly being advised, wishes them to. They are assembled, addressed and lunched to death from time to time by the body that has brought them into being."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 April 1980; c. 470.]
From my experience in Cardiff and other venues in Wales, that is happening all the


time. A letter was written by HTV to the IBA advisory committee which prompted that committee to make an immediate U-turn in its policy over the fourth channel. That is a further example of the insidious influence of HTV on the life of Wales.
It is extremely important to know how the Minister sees these committees being appointed in order to reflect the views of the audiences. I spoke earlier about the need to involve the audience. We are dealing with a powerful communications medium. The audience should be able to talk back. These committees normally only echo those people to whom the audience is supposed to talk.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I apologise to the House for making a speech at this late hour, but I am not half as sorry for other hon. Members as I am for myself. At my age I should know better than to put my name to amendments that will be taken at this hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 85 has not been moved. We are dealing only with amendment No. 112.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The names of the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), and myself are also appended to amendment No. 85. I believe that we have a perfect right to speak to the amendment, even though the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) may have decided not to pursue it.

Mr. MacKenzie: I apologise. I thought my right hon. Friend had moved amendment No. 85.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) indicated that he was not moving amendment No. 85. No other hon. Member sought to move the amendment. I therefore called the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), whose amendment was grouped with it. I am afraid that we cannot now discuss amendment No. 85. We are dealing only with amendment No. 112.

Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If there are seven names to an amendment, even though the first named hon. Member may

not wish to move it, other hon. Members named may do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is right, but no other hon. Member sought to move the amendment. I looked round the Chamber, and the hon. Member for Merioneth rose to move his amendment.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman was only one of three hon. Members on this side of the House to rise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned amendment No. 85 was not moved. Hon. Members cannot speak to an amendment that has not been moved when we have moved to a later amendment. If I am in error, I apologise to the House, but we cannot move back again. We are discussing amendment No. 112.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) asks for clarity. If the House were to pass this amendment, people would have to be invited to serve on the committee as a result of nominations by organisations representing the trade union movement and cultural, linguistic and ethnic minority groups, and at least half of the persons serving on the committee should be women.
The last provision is reasonably precise. The previous provisions are imprecise. They would not assist the IBA in making appointments. The Bill's broad position is right, and it is right that the national advisory committees should consist of persons who in the authority's opinion will be able to reflect, as far as is reasonably practicable, the range of tastes and interests of those living in the county concerned. To make a vague series of bodies nominating bodies, and to impose on the IBA the obligation to decide who should constitute such bodies, would not add to clarity or assist in any way. I therefore cannot commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Freud: I have looked carefully at amendment No. 112. I understand why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you chose to select it in concert with amendment No. 85. I shall speak generally rather than specifically in support of the amendment. We are creating an incestuous situation, because the Government have decided that those who sit on the complaints panel should be appointed by a board of appointees. We disagree with the


Minister's statement, because we should like an element of genuine democracy in the complaints procedure.
It is unwarranted to use the IBA—which is already appointed—to appoint more people without any reference to an elected body. I should like the Minister to explain why Secretaries of State and other elected people should not have some say in who should sit on the complaints panel.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is important to debate this issue more widely than was apparently intended. The amendment seeks to widen the choice of representative bodies. That suggestion should be taken up. I am getting a little sick and tired of the way in which the Civil Service lists the great and the good. Indeed, no doubt the IBA was appointed from such a list. Those who serve on the IBA could not carry out the 1973 Act even if it were sprayed on their eyeballs. For example, they ignore the requirement for natural breaks and allow independent television companies to chop up feature films as and when they choose. If a plumber, engineer or someone in an ordinary capacity were to do that, the weight and majesty of the law would be visited upon them.
The IBA is patently failing to perform its duty. It is therefore wrong to give it the right of further appointment. The amendment is plain. The Minister has been provided with a brief by civil servants, who like to keep the whole thing close to their incestuous organisation. They have a list of the great and the good, and they know that the people whom they appoint will appoint the same type of safe people who litter all appointed bodies in our society. The amendment is reasonable and suggests that organisations representing trade union movement, cultural, linguistic and ethnic minority groups, should be represented.
People of common sense and good will could interpret the legislation satisfactorily. The Minister knows that those who felt that the legislation was not being interpreted satisfactorily could challenge the matter in the courts. As a lawyer, he will also know that entry into the courts is restricted by the high cost. By and large, the exercise of the legislation, carried out with good will and common sense, would not be likely to be open to

challenge. The Minister's feeble explanation that it would be terribly difficult does not hold water. If it is terribly difficult, I must inform the Minister and his colleagues that they have some difficult decisions ahead. They are passing legislation that is a great deal more complicated and difficult than that proposed by this simple amendment.
Arcane and obscure legislation has been produced by Government draftsmen, yet the Minister has the gall to say that the amendment cannot be interpreted and that it is too difficult. That is nonsense. What the Minister means, behind the cliché-ridden platitudes that pass for the exchange of ideas in Parliament, is that he has no wish or desire to extend the range of representation on these appointed bodies. The hon. and learned Gentleman is really saying that it is wrong that bodies in the community at large should provide people and that the initiative, to some degree, should be taken away from Government-appointed bodies. I believe that it is a good idea to go outside. We should open up the appointment of governors. We should start advertising to the public at large invitations to serve on these bodies instead of producing out of a hat these wonderful, distinguished names that are supposed to make high-quality decisions.
I am very much in favour of the amendment. The Minister's explanation has not satisfied me. The amendment is workable. It was noteworthy that the Minister did not say that it would be a good idea to open up the matter and involve more people through the representation of the bodies listed in the amendment. His remarks were not at all along the lines that there were a few ambiguities attached to the amendment that could be tidied up by the draftsmen. According to the Minister it was too terribly difficult for the weight and majesty of the Government to grapple with and therefore had to be cast to one side.
I do not care that it is 1.30 am. This is a reasonable idea. Many hon. Members struggled to get into Parliament. While we are here, we should make good use of the time. The amendments put forward some good ideas that should be debated. It is to be regretted that the Government have taken the attitude of decrying the amendment and sheltering behind the administrative argument that


it is too difficult. I believe that the Government should change their mind and inject some new thinking into what is becoming a tired argument.

Mr. Whitehead: One thing that should go on record in the debate is that the views expressed by three political parties on the Opposition Benches, and widely felt outside the House among the mass of the people, should be heeded not only by the IBA and the Home Office but by the BBC. There is a wide realisation that the advisory committees, in their present form, fulfil no useful purpose. The reason is that they are self-perpetuating elites. This is a matter to which the Annan committe tried to draw attention.
We met enough of these bodies in our time. We travelled the length and breadth of the country. We found these groups well marshalled, well scrubbed, well turned-out, emollient in form and practice, telling us that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds in their various broadcasting areas. So they would. They would not be reappointed if they did not do so. That is the problem. I intend no slander on the worthy individuals who make up these bodies when I say that the one thing that one does not get is a piece of grit inserted into the oyster. Those who ask awkward questions and challenge the nature, balance, extent and vision of the programming of the station are soon isolated.
That is why the diverse suggestions of hon. Members ought to be considered. They will not be considered in this debate or on this Bill, but they ought to be on the record in the House so that at some stage we scrap the absurd system of advisory committees.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The Minister indicated that the proposals in the amendment were deeply complex. He said that he understood what was meant by
representing the trades union movement".
Presumably he has met trade unionists, but he said that he did not understand what was meant by
cultural, linguistic and ethnic minority groups".

I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to consult one of his own agencies—the Community Relations Commission—which could provide him with a long list of ethnic minority groups. As for cultural and linguistic groups, if the Minister consults the Northern Ireland Office or the Welsh Office he will be given a long list of such groups in the areas in which the advisory committees will function.

The point of the amendment is not that those groups would elect representatives directly. I am not proposing such a revolutionary and democratic move, though I think that that day will come. We propose that the organisations should nominate persons who would be invited to serve on the committees. The idea is that there might be names cropping up for possible selection that do not reflect the timid consensus that we get on the committees.

The basis of the nomination procedure in the clause is to nominate persons who
in the opinion of the Authority would be selected by reference to … qualifications tastes and interests".
and persons
selected by reference to … qualifications".

The basis of my argument is that people serve on a committee not because of their personages but because they are representative of specific interests, just as hon. Members regard themselves as representative of their constituents. The committees have no constituents. They are unanswerable, they do not reply, and they are not summoned back to report on their work. They are there to represent their personages and, as always, that results in members being sucked into the system and becoming a reflection of that of which they are supposed to be critical.

The purpose of the amendment is not that ethnic minorities or women's organisations should directly elect persons to democratise the system it is merely that they should propose names so that the undemocratic structure is made slightly less so. I ask the Minister to reconsider his reply.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 116.

Division No. 370]
AYES
[1.33 am


English, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Homewood, William
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett


Howells, Geraint






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Percival, Sir Ian


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hawkins, Paul
Pollock, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Heddle, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Best, Keith
Henderson, Barry
Raison, Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hooson, Tom
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Blackburn, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bright, Graham
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brinton, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Bryan, Sir Paul
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Bulmer, Esmond
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Speller, Tony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Major, John
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Channon, Paul
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Donald


Cope, John
Mellor, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Cranborne, Viscount
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Dover, Denshore
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Waller, Gary


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Ward, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Mudd, David
Watson, John


Eyre, Reginald
Murphy, Christopher
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Needham, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Normanton, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Gow, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grist, Ian
Parris, Matthew
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 23

DUTIES OF AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAMME CONTRACTS

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 19, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert
'and at the expiry of eight years from the time of making any contract, the contract shall be treated as terminated; but subject to subsection (1)(a) of this section, nothing shall preclude the Authority from entering into a new contract with the same programme contractor provided that it shall have given public notice of the termination of the proceeding contract and invited tenders for this new contractual period.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 87, in page 19, line 37, leave out ' if they they think fit.'.
No. 89, in page 20, leave out lines 3 to 14.

Mr. Whitehead: I make no apology for detaining the House for a few moments longer on this last series of amendments. This was the major piece

of unfinished business when the Bill came out of Standing Committee E. The reason for that was that there was then, and there persists now, an ambiguity in the extent to which we understand there is to be a full determination of the contracts held by radio and television companies, particularly the former, at the end of the eight-year period that will now be the period specified in the Act.
In Standing Committee the Minister responded to earlier remarks of mine, when I drew his attention to the difference between what appeared to be the Home Office view and the published statements of Mr. John Thompson of the IBA, by defining for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and myself exactly what the new contracts were. At the eleventh sitting of the Committee he told my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that a rolling contract
after all its rolls have run, must be no more than eight years, after which it is treated,… as being at an end, for the purpose of further consideration of the opinion of the public with a view to whether it should or should not be renewed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 April 1980; c. 546.]
That still leaves open the question whether public opinion about the renewal


of the contract is one that obtains in terms of a decision to readvertise the franchise—opening it up to fresh tender—or a decision simply to go on as before with the existing contractor.
1.45 am
When I raised this question with the Minister at the preceding session of the Standing Committee he said that the arrangement as he understood it was that the break clause meant what it said. He said:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that no teleision or radio company will be able by any device or means to have a contract for more than eight years if this Bill reaches the statute book, without the contract being subjected to the scrutiny set out in clause 23, and in particular, to the procedure for ascertaining the opinions of the public.
At the end of that eight years the IBA will have to decide whether or not to renew the contract, to whom to give the contract, and so on."—[Official Report. Standing Committee E, 22 April 1980; c. 498.]
What was not said there, and has not been said to this day, is whether that obligation means that the contract shall be open for public competition once more.
When we consider how lucrative these contracts are we realise that a large number of the original groups of radio contractors are already paying secondary rental and will have been immense financial successes by the time the eight years are up. In that position it is surely right that the public should not merely express a view upon the performance of these contractors—particularly in view of the fairly diaphanous way in which the public meetings appear likely to be conducted—but should know that a contract is to be readvertised.
Mr. John Thompson, for whom I have the highest esteem—I think that he would not mind my saying this to the House—has told me that he will go as far as the letter of the law. He will do what Parliament says he must do. But when he addressed a public meeting in Bristol recently he would go no further than the phraseology that the Minister used in Standing Committee.
Mr. Thompson said that when the period of eight years was up:
The authority at the end of that period will be required under the Act of Parliament to carry out what is described as, roughly

speaking, a major review of the franchise situation.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the authority will have an obligation not merely to review how the contractor has gone on, and invite public comment upon his performance, but to invite fresh tenders in the way that has always happened—and will happen under this legislation for the television companies—or would it be permitted, in some circumstances, not to allow public meetings at all, which is possible if we retain the phrase "if they think fit"? I suggested in amendment No. 87 that that phrase should be struck out.
If there is a public meeting, would it be open to the authority to go on with that existing contractor with no public opening up of the tender to competition? If that is the situation, I submit that it is very unsatisfactory. These franchises—the air waves—are a public asset, and as such they should be open from time to time not merely to public scrutiny but to competitive re-examination, exactly as has been the situation in television.
It will be difficult enough, with the rolling contract procedure and the immense accretion of influence and interest that the larger television and radio companies have, for any challenger successfully to emerge. To exclude the possibility that a challenger can compete on anything like equal terms by not making it clear that the franchises must be put up for readvertisement seems to me not to be in the spirit in which broadcasting legislation of the past 20 years, regulating the commercial side of broadcasting, has always been conducted.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say a little more today than he said in Standing Committee and will indicate that in future we shall see, after eight years, contracts readvertised.

Mr. Brittan: I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 87 and 89, and then move on to amendment No. 86.
I would not advise the House to accept amendment No. 89 because if it were passed I think that it would make it very difficult to be clear what the provision was with regard to the rolling contract system, which we discussed in Committee and which I think is to the benefit of the broadcasting system as a whole.
I would not advise the House to accept amendment No. 87, because, although of course we accept that public meetings have a valuable role to play in the consultation procedures prior to the awarding of contracts, I do not think that they are essential on every occasion, and in some cases public opinion surveys or the work of local advisory committees give sufficient indication of public feeling.
Much the most important amendment in this group is amendment No. 86 which seeks to ensure that when the contract has expired at the end of eight years, before a new contract is entered into not only is public opinion ascertained by means of a meeting or in other ways, but contracts for both ILR and ITV are readvertised. I accept that that is, in principle, desirable. Even on those occasions when there is, in effect, no competition and no alternative coming forward, I think that it is right that the exercise should be gone through. I think that it is in principle right that there should be a readvertising of the franchise of the particular area, whether it is in relation to television or sound radio.
Therefore, I see the value of reinforcing a practice that is very general—indeed, almost universal with television—with a statutory requirement, which I am ready to accept on behalf of the Government, in principle. However, I think that amendment No. 86 as it stands is not the appropriate vehicle for doing that, because as drafted it leaves unclear the position when the IBA has entered into a rolling contract. I think that flexibility in allowing such rolling contracts is desirable.
We therefore undertake to an amendment in another place which, while preserving the position on rolling contracts, meets hon. Members' wishes for a requirement on the IBA to open up each contract to competition at intervals of not more than eight years.

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the Minister. I am very glad that this part of the Report stage is ending on that happy note.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28

INTERPRETATION, EXTENSION OF CERTAIN REFERENCES IN MAIN ACT, TRANSI TIONAL PROVISIONS AND REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 22, line 44, at end insert
ITV" and "the Fourth Channel" have the meaning given by section 2(2); '.

No. 91, in page 23, leave out lines 7 and 8.

No. 92, in page 23, line 19, at end insert—
' (2A) Nothing in this Act affects the power of the Secretary of State under main section 31(4) to give directions as to the information to be included in any report prepared under main section 31(3); and that power shall include power to direct the Authority to include in any such report such information relating to any matter required by this Act to be dealt with in the report as may be specified in the directions.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 29

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 23, line 36, leave out to 27, 28(1) and (2) ' and insert—
`, 25, (Information as to television programme contracts and applications for such contracts), 26, 27, 28(1) to (2A) '.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 28, line 4, leave out ' and section 16 ' and insert—
, section 16 and section (Training of persons employed by programme contractors)'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 5 July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills be amended, by leaving out Mr. James Hill and inserting Mr. Neil Thorne.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

ROADS (BEDFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. David Madel: At this very late hour, I welcome the opportunity for a short Adjournment debate on the effect of the 1980 White Paper on roads—Cmnd. 7908—and the effect that it will have on my constituency of Bedfordshire, South.
I start by saying how glad I am to see the Minister in his place and by thanking him and his officials for the way in which they have received delegations from various parts of my constituency since the present Government came to power in May of last year, and for giving my constituents and organisations in my constituency and towns and villages the opportunity of putting their case for improvement in the roads that we have.
The Minister and I have been in the House for 10 years. We got in on the same day—19 June 1970. We both have local problems. One that has in many ways dwarfed all others for me in South Bedfordshire has been the question of our roads and traffic. That is why I am glad to have a chance to raise this matter tonight.
There are two main reasons why we have such a high volume of traffic in South Bedfordshire. First, we have the large car and truck plants in Luton and Duns—Vauxhall and Chrysler, or Talbot, as it is now called. They generate a considerable amount of traffic. Secondly, in the town of Leighton Buzzard we have one of the largest concentrations of road hauliers. They generate a large volume of traffic.
It would be easy for me to have a debate on every village in South Bedfordshire and spend a considerable amount of time on it, but I want to confine my remarks tonight to the way in which the 1980 roads White Paper affects us, because it mentioned certain parts of my constituency that I now wish to talk about.
First, I welcome the White Paper for its detail. It is a very thorough attempt to evaluate priorities. I think that we all—certainly Government supporters—

recognise that this is done with the background of restraint in public expenditure.
I start with paragraph 156 of the White Paper and say how welcome I find it when it says that relief will be provided on the M1 between junctions 5 and 8. That infamous two-lane stretch has an effect on South Bedfordshire. Indeed, this history of the M1 in that area shows, as paragraph 156 stresses, that
Substantial resurfacing work has already been undertaken. …Extensive reconstruction is about to start in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire.
On 23 June there was a typical day on the M1. At 8.15 am, which one would think was a reasonable time of the day for people to get to work, everything came to its customary standstill because of the colossal volume of traffic. There was no rain, fog or snow. Nevertheless, that road was in a shocking state. There is urgent need for road widening. I am therefore delighted to see in paragraph 156 the commitment by the Government that widening of that stretch is to start.
I turn to paragraph 155. As the Department said earlier this year, the Thame-Stevenage road has been suspended. The White Paper says that it:
has been suspended for the time being.
I am glad that it goes on to say:
We do, however, intend to complete it eventually.
Those are the further words in the paragraph.
I am especially pleased to see that paragraph 155 goes on to mention several towns between Thame and Stevenage. Leighton Buzzard is one of them. Duns is another. The White Paper says:
We are now considering urgently whether bypasses for any of them should be undertaken quickly and what arrangements might be made for constructing them.
My information is that Bedfordshire county council has just applied for a 100 per cent. grant for the construction of the Leighton Buzzard-Sutton bypass. In other words, it has done what is already being done in Faringdon and Thame. Earlier in paragraph 155 it says that
A bypass for Faringdon has been completed and one at Thame is under construction, both with the aid of 100 per cent. grants.
In other words, Bedfordshire county council is seeking to do for Leighton Buzzard what has already been done for Thame and Faringdon. The programme


to build this bypass is in the 1982–83 Bedfordshire county council road programme.
I hope the Minister will say, in these early hours of Wednesday, whether the Government are sympathetic to this application for a 100 per cent. grant and when we are likely to know whether we have got that 100 per cent. grant for the southern relief road in the way that Faringdon and Thame have already got theirs.
The Minister kindly received a delegation from Leighton Buzzard about the urgent need for a bypass. The congestion in the town is bad. The future of its industry is dependent upon communications being improved. I have already mentioned the large number of road hauliers, and there are other equally important companies in the town which urgently need the southern relief road. There is a strategic need to build the road because of Leighton Buzzard's position in the West-East corridor, with traffic going to the East Coast ports. There has been a substantial growth of housing in Leighton Buzzard, which has generated more traffic. There are also the environmental needs of the town.
I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government are sympathetic to the 100 per cent. grant for which the Bedfordshire county council applied, and when we are likely to know whether our application is approved. The matter is urgent. The White Paper recognises that, because it mentions Leighton Buzzard. I hope that there will be an early decision.
I turn to Duns, which is mentioned in paragraph 155. The Government say that they are urgently considering whether a bypass is needed. It is not clear from that paragraph whether the Government mean a North-South bypass or an East-West bypass. If one says in Duns "What about the town's bypass?", most people imagine that it is the North-South proposal, off the A5. The A5 is a trunk road, and people naturally assume that if there is to be a North-South bypass the Government will pay the bill for its construction.
When the M1 was constructed 20 years ago, it could be held then, and for a few years after, to be a sort of bypass for Duns. That is no longer the case, first, because the M1 has become so con

gested that it is a deterrent to use it to bypass Duns and, secondly, because there has been a substantial growth of traffic which funnels down the A5 because of the extraordinarily rapid growth of Milton Keynes during the past 10 years. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say whether the Duns bypass is to be North-South or East-West. If it is to be East-West, I assume that it will be a road between Duns and Hockliffe, hopefully linking up with the Leighton Buzzard southern relief road. It is an urgent matter that the North-South bypass should take some of the traffic out of Duns so that the main A5 in Duns becomes less congested.
I turn to the village of Barton, which is mentioned on page 51 of the White Paper—which is welcomed for its detail, although I do not necessarily agree with everything that is said about a particular area. Under section C "Schemes in Preparation", which are temporarily suspended, there is mentioned the A6 Barton bypass, marked with an asterisk. At the bottom of the page it says.
Future of scheme under review.
My hon. and learned Friend will recall that I brought the parish council from Barton to see him about the urgent need for a bypass. Is the concept of a bypass under question? Are we ever likely to get one, or has the whole idea been abandoned?
On page 42, the village of Silsoe, a little further up the A6, is all right, because it is estimated that its bypass will be completed in 1981. A little further up the A6 towards Bedford, Wilstead already has its bypass completed. Many people in Barton say "What is good enough for Wilstead and Silsoe should be good enough for Barton. Barton is tired of being the Cinderella of the A6 between Luton and Bedford and getting absolutely nothing done for it." Like every village in South Bedfordshire, Barton has grown considerably in the last 15 years. That increases the need for a bypass. Bedfordshire county council is anxious to make full use of the bypasses already constructed at Silsoe and Wilstead and divert traffic on to the A6, which is a trunk road. It is fair and reasonable—and sensible from a national view—to build a bypass on the A6 for Barton.
I appreciate that everybody is clamouring for priority as a result of the publication of the White Paper, and that resources are limited. In the last 15 to 20 years, relatively little has been spent on Bedfordshire's road system compared with other counties. That does not mean that nothing else has happened. Industry has expanded. The car and truck industry causes special problems on the roads. Housing has grown at a fast pace in the last 20 years. I refer not only to housing for ourselves but to housing for London. The county has taken a considerable amount of GLC overspill. If we are to maintain a reasonable environment with a balance between town and village it is important to proceed with the bypasses.
The case for constructing the bypasses is not simply a local one, vitally important as that is. There is a national case for improving the roads and constructing bypasses. Bedfordshire is in a double corridor from West to East. The traffic to the East Coast ports is increasing because of our membership of the EEC. We are in the South-East/North-West corridor, where the main industry of the country is situated. I am grateful for the detail in the White Paper about Leighton Buzzard, Barton and Duns, but I hope that the Minister can go further and say more about the time scale and the Government commitment to go ahead with the bypasses.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the first hon. Member to initiate a debate on the White Paper on roads. I congratulate him on the way in which he has presented the case for his constituents.
I shall first deal with the White Paper in general so that the House can put my remarks about Bedfordshire schemes in context. It is important that people understand what the White Paper is trying to do. The White Paper does two main things. It describes our policy for the trunk road system and lists in as much detail as possible all the schemes for new construction and improvements grouped according to the period during which construction is likely to start.
The Government's first priority must be to ensure national economic recovery and to reduce public expenditure to help to achieve that. The road programme must be considered in that context. The plans in the White Paper are a compromise between what we would like to do and what we can afford if we are prudent about the nation's resources.
We shall be spending about £300 million at November 1978 prices on new construction and improvements in each of the next four years. That means that the programme is being stabilised at the level that we inherited from the last Administration. There is no dramatic reduction in the levels of spending on the roads programme in which the massive cuts were made between 1974 and 1976.
However, we have cut out supposed plans for increased spending on the trunk road programme for which the previous Government made no sensible provision. The programme includes nearly 400 schemes, at an estimated total cost of about £3½ billion. That represents a substantial investment in new roads, but it is a long-term trunk road programme.
In drawing up the plans in the White Paper we have chosen two priorities for our immediate planning. The first is the need to complete roads that aid economic recovery and development, particularly roads between our industrial centres and the ports. Our second priority is to build roads that bring environmental benefit—particularly bypasses, to take heavy traffic out of towns and villages that were never designed to take it.
Against that general background, we have tried to be realistic in setting starting dates for particular schemes. The dates given for such schemes in this White Paper are considerably more realistic than those given in the previous Government's White Paper, which tended to be over-optimistic in terms of pure practicality and possibility. Many schemes listed in this White Paper have later starting dates than those that were shown in the previous White Paper, which was published in April 1978, but as those forecasts were always optimistic, some schemes appear to be delayed in our White Paper, when they have been subject to no delay as a result of policy. We hope to achieve the dates that are set out in the White Paper, as opposed to making optimistic guesses.
In reassessing the scheme, we decided that a number of schemes, although worth while, did not command the highest priority and were unlikely to be started for some time. Rather than spending money on preparation work now on every scheme, we decided to stop work at a sui point on a fair number of schemes and put them on ice, to be resumed at a later stage when we are nearer to a possible date for construction.
Against that background, I turn to the specific problems of South Bedfordshire. There has already been a substantial investment in roads in that area, which includes the major motorway of the country—the M1—which runs through my hon. Friend's constituency and affects his constituents to a considerable extent. I know about the difficulties that occur on the M1 at the two-lane section that runs near Watford. My hon. Friend described the conditions on a particular Monday morning, when to the best of my recollection I was travelling down the M1 through traffic jams approximately half an hour after the time he described. It is therefore with pleasure that I am able to say that we are proceeding with proposals to widen this two-lane section, and we have invited tenders for it. We hope that work will start on the widening in September of this year, although it is a substantial scheme and it will take about three years to complete. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be relieved when we at last get rid of that bottleneck.
The comprehensive improvement of the A1 is nearly complete. Although it is to the East of my hon. Friend's constituency it has relieved the A5 and the A6 of much of their traffic, and we plan to start work on the final section of the A1 improvement near Hatfield in 1982–83.
My hon. Friend spoke about villages in his constituency and the Thame-Stevenage route, which is designed to improve East-West links through the area. I announced on 18 March that for the time being we were halting further work on the project. We took that decision in the context of our review of the whole road programme, but I announced it in advance of the White Paper in order to stop any further abortive expenditure. The development of the route is intended to serve a longer-term need. The White Paper makes clear that we intend to construct it eventually,

but its possible construction is so far ahead that we did not think that we could justify continuing expenditure on its preparation at present. The preparatory work was expensive, and the funds can be put to better and more immediate use elsewhere. For that reason, further development of the route is deferred for the time being.
As my statement at the time recognised, and as I am happy to confirm again today, we believe that there is a stronger case for getting on with bypasses for some of the communities along the route. Some work is being carried out, and the Thame bypass is already under construction. The local highway authority, the Buckinghamshire county council, is constructing it with a 100 per cent. grant from my Department, because it will eventually form part of a trunk road when the Thame-Stevenage link has been completed.
Against that background, there are a number of other towns on the present route from Aylesbury to the A1(M) at Stevenage, where we are now considering the possibility of bypasses. Leighton Buzzard, Luton, Duns and Hitchin are the most obvious cases. We are now considering whether bypasses for any of them should be undertaken in advance of the rest of the Thame-Stevenage route. In the case of Duns, I refer to an East-West bypass. I shall refer to the North-South bypass later. We shall now have to consider what provision we might make for those four places for constructing bypasses in advance of the main route.
We have various alternatives. One would be to take them into the trunk road programme altogether. Another would be to use the 100 per cent. grant procedure. On the other hand, we may decide that these bypasses are really catering for local traffic needs and will not really fit within the trunk road network at any stage, in which case the responsibility for constructing them will be left with the county council and we shall make grant available under the transport and supplementary grant system. At present we are considering whether schemes for those towns would qualify for the 100 per cent. grant procedure, which is enabling the Thame bypass to be constructed. If any of them do qualify, they will have to compete for funds with other schemes already in the programme.
I begin with the case for a southern relief road of Leighton Buzzard. This has been planned for some years by the county council. It would be a bypass to encourage through traffic to use the A4012 between the town and the A5, thereby relieving the A418 through Heath and Reach, to the North. The scheme was shown at one stage in the county council's TPP as a scheme to be started in 1976. In 1977–78 the council said that it was delaying the final work on it while we examined the need for Leighton-Linslade southern relief road. My announcement in March altered the situation, but we are taking further steps to examine the possibility of a Leighton Buzzard southern relief road qualifying for a 100 per cent. grant. We have asked Bedfordshire county council to come forward with detailed proposals for this relief road, so that we can judge how well such a scheme would fit in with other proposals in the Thame-Stevenage corridor. I understand that the council is well advanced with that work and I believe that it is on its way to us now. When we have that detailed work we shall be able to see whether the criteria for a 100 per cent. grant are satisfied, and judge what priority we should give the scheme in our programme.
Pending our receipt of that work, I can tell my hon. Friend that I am fully aware of the problems of Leighton Buzzard, and I fully accept that there is a case for a bypass to the South of Leighton-Linslade. The county should not slow down any preparation work that it is doing as there is no doubt that Leighton will get such a bypass in due course. We are really deciding now how to finance it, and once we come to a conclusion on that we can begin looking for a date to fit the road into our programme or that of the local authority.
My hon. Friend asked how long it would take to get through this stage of receiving proposals and then producing conclusions on them. I would expect to complete that in 12 months at the most, so by that stage we should know exactly what status the new road will have.
My hon. Friend also mentioned schemes on the A5 and A6 through his constituency. Since the M1 was built and the A1 was improved to motorway standards for part of its length, the A5 and

A6 have had a much less important role as national strategic routes. They now serve local traffic needs rather than national ones, although I appreciate that the local traffic is very important and is building up to some extent. In due course these roads should be detrunked—that is. handed back to the county council. It can then assume responsibility for them as local roads. That does not mean that we shall neglect our duty, meanwhile. to improve them where necessary and offer release for communities along those roads.
The stretch of the A6 between Luton and Bedford has been improved over the years. Bypasses have been built for Wilstead and Wilstead Hill. The Silsoe bypass is under construction and should be opened this autumn. The Elstow bypass has had to be put back a bit. It is in the reserve list for 1980–81. However, it will be fitted in as and when a gap appears that leaves resources in the road construction programme.
The only remaining scheme, therefore, is the Barton bypass. Together with my hon. Friend, I met a delegation from Barton parish council. I know how acutely it feels about the traffic conditions in the village. I know that proposals for a Barton bypass have a very long history. I fully understand that when comparisons are made between Barton's position and that of Wilstead, Silsoe and Elstow, they feel somewhat neglected. Part of that is due to sheer chance. Silsoe and Elstow appear to have had their bypass schemes in a more advanced stage of preparation. For reasons that are beyond recall, the plans were ready to be used before financial problems were incurred in managing the trunk road programme.
At present, Barton must await a decision on the question whether we can continue the preparation work. In the White Paper, it appeared as one of the schemes upon which preparation has for the time being been suspended while its future is reconsidered. I listened with sympathy to the case put to me by my hon. Friend and his constituents when I met them. However, following our review of the national programme, it was impossible to justify giving it a high priority in the national trunk road programme.
In economic terms, using modern methods of analysis, it does not represent good value for money. Although it would


bring environmental benefits, they must be compared with those available under other schemes. They are not so overwhelming as to justify priority. That does not mean that the whole thing has been abandoned. It means that I appreciate that the people of Barton are disappointed and worried about the prospect of further delay. At present the scheme could be helped only at the expense of more urgent schemes. It will be a few years before anything can be done to give relief to the village of Barton-in-the-Clay.
The length of the A6 between Luton and Bedford mainly serves local traffic. In the long run we envisage detrunking it. It would then become the responsibility of the county council. It would be for it to decide what priority it gave to improvements. It may be that the county council would accord it a higher priority than I have been able to give from a national viewpoint. If so, the bypass might be built more quickly if the county council were to take early responsibility for the A6. I

shall be happy to consider any representations that the county council wishes to make.
As for the A5, the Department informed the county council about three and a half years ago that it did not intend to include a trunk bypass for Duns. The main reason was that the A5 served predominantly local traffic. One length of the AS in Hertfordshire has already been detrunked. That means that a decision was taken some years ago to the effect that any North-South road in Duns would be for the county council to plan and finance, rather than my Department—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.